Previewpdf

Creativity in Context
Creatvty
in Context
Update to
The Social Psychology of Creativity
Teresa M. Amabile
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
with updates Tbjj

Teresa M. Amabile
Mary Ann Collins
Regina Conti
Elise Phillips
Martha Picariello
John Ruscio
Dean Whitney
Routledge
Taylor &. Francis Group
New York London
First published 1996 by Westview Press
Published 2018 by Routledge

711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX 14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
Copyright © 1996 Taylor & Francis
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by
any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying
and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publishers.
Notice:
Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Amabile, Teresa M.
Creativity in context / Teresa M. Amabile.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and indexes.
ISBN 0-8133-2827-6 (he).—ISBN 0-8133-3034-3 (pbk.)
1. Creative ability. 2. Creative ability—Social aspects.
3. Motivation (Psychology) I. Title.
BF411.A43 1996
153.3'5—dc20 96-11298
CIP
ISBN 13: 978-0-8133-3034-1 (pbk)
To my parents,
Charles and Carmela Amabile
Contents
Preface to the Updated Edition xi

Preface to the 1983 Edition xv
Part One
Understanding and Assessing Creativity
1 The Case for a Social Psychology of Creativity 3
A Gap in Creativity Research, 3
Some Social Psychological Stories, 5
A Recurrent Theme: Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Motivation, 15
Update, 16
2 The Meaning and Measurement of Creativity 19

Previous Approaches to Creativity Definition, 20
Previous Approaches to Creativity Measurement, 22
A Consensual Definition of Creativity, 33
A Conceptual Definition of Creativity, 35
Update, 37
3 A Consensual Technique for Creativity Assessment 41

The Consensual Assessment of Artistic Creativity, 44
The Consensual Assessment of Verbal Creativity, 54
A Summary of Major Findings, 60
Comparison with Previous Techniques, 63
Limitations and Future Possibilities, 65
A Wider Context, 67
Update, 67
Reliability Calculation, 68
New Reliability Data on Collages and Haiku Poems, 68
New Creativity Tasks, 69
Issues and Changes in the Consensual Assessment Technique, 72
vii
viii Contents
Other Uses of the Consensual Assessment Technique, 78

Summary, 79
4 A Theoretical Framework 81
Preliminary Assumptions and Observations, 82
The Components of Creative Performance, 83
A Componential Framework, 93
The Intrinsic Motivation Hypothesis of Creativity, 107
Update, 112
The Original Model, 112
Expansion, Refinement, and Revision of the Original Model, 112
Empirical Support for the Componential Model, 122
Comparision to Other Comprehensive Models, 124
Summary, 127
Part Two
Social and Environmental Influences
5 Effects of Evaluation on Creativity 131
Intrinsic Motivation, Creativity, and the Nature of the Task, 133
The Basic Research Paradigm, 134
Impact of Evaluation Expectation, 135
Impact of Actual Evaluation, 145
Summary, 149
Update, 150
Summary, 152
6 Effects of Reward and Task Constraint 153

Previous Research, 155
Effects of Reward of Children's Creativity, 162
The Interaction of Reward and Choice, 165
Choice in Aspects of Task Engagement, 169
Summary, 171
Update, 171
Reward, 171
Constraint, 176
Summary, 177
Contents ix
7 Social Facilitation, Modeling, and Motivational Orientation 179

Social Facilitation Theories: Implications for Creativity, 179
Evidence on the Social Facilitation and Inhibition of Creativity, 182
Modeling Influences on Creative Individuals, 185
Experimental Studies of Modeling, 189
Motivational Orientation: A Theoretical Analysis, 192
Motivational Orientation: An Empirical Demonstration, 193
Summary, 197
Update, 198
Social Facilitation, 198
Modeling, 198
Motivational Orientation, 199
Summary, 202
8 Other Social and Environmental Influences 203

Educational Environments, 203
Work Environments, 210
Family Influences, 211
Societal, Political, and Cultural Influences, 213
Other Influences on Creativity, 222
Summary, 228
Update, 229
Educational Environments, 230
Work Environments, 230
Family Influences, 236
Other Influences on Creativity, 237
Summary, 240
Part Three
Implications
9 Implications for Enhancing Creativity 243
Direct Attempts: Creativity-Training Programs, 244
A Review of Social Influences on Creativity, 248
Implications for Education and Child-rearing, 250
Implications for the Arts, the Sciences, and Industry, 253
Update, 257
X Contents
Enhancing the Components of Creativity, 257

Supporting Children's Creativity, 260
Supporting Creativity in Work Organizations, 261
Summary, 262
10 Toward a Comprehensive Psychology of Creativity 263

Social Psychology of Creativity: Current Status, 264
Social Psychology of Creativity: Future Directions, 266
Integrating Theoretical Perspectives, 268
Update, 270
Research Advances, 270
Next Steps in Research, 272
Theoretical Advances, 273
Conclusion, 274
References to the 1983 Edition 275

References to the Updates 295
About the Book and Author 303
Credits 305
Index 307
Preface to the Updated Edition
When Westview Press expressed an interest in republishing The Social Psychology

of Creativity, I was very pleased. The book, originally published in 1983, had been
out of print for three years, and I felt frustrated whenever researchers or students
called to ask where they might find a copy. However, although I was pleased to
know that the book would once again be available, I was well aware of the many
recent advances that are not represented in the original. It is my hope that this up-
dated edition, retitled Creativity in Context, will both preserve the original and
provide some insight into recent developments in the field. As indicated by the
change in title, the updates will build upon and expand beyond the boundaries of
the original work.
It has been 13 years since I began writing The Social Psychology of Creativity.
Although those years have passed quickly, there have been significant changes in
my research and in my thinking about creativity. I have worked with a great many
new students and colleagues, and although we have continued to explore a num-
ber of the research questions outlined in the 1983 edition of this book, we have
also moved in new directions. We have begun to study the ways in which social
factors can serve to maintain creativity, going well beyond our earlier focus on the
ways in which social factors can kill creativity. We have considered personality fac-
tors—stable individual differences—in motivational orientation and how they af-
fect creativity in a number of domains. We have begun to think in detail about the
cognitive mechanisms by which motivation might have an impact on creativity.
And we have stretched the scope of our research by expanding to new populations
(for example, professional artists and research scientists), new settings (specifi-
cally, business organizations), and new methods (such as surveys, interviews, and
the examination of existing creative works).
As I began my study of creativity, over 20 years ago, I envisioned myself as care-
fully and methodically adding planks to the grand framework of psychological
science. In retrospect, my work over these past two decades seems rather more like
a surprising journey in search of the pieces to an important puzzle; although
much of it was unpredictable, it does nonetheless fit together. This journey has
taken me far beyond the domain of traditional social psychology, where I began,
to many disparate domains that all hold pieces of this puzzle—cognitive, person-
ality, developmental, and industrial psychology; organizational behavior; and or-
ganizational development. It has been a journey marked by both stability and
change, by planning and chaos, by systematic research and opportunistic investi-
gations. Although the puzzle now has a definite shape, there are still wide gaps. I
xi
xii Preface to the Updated Edition
am excited about sharing the discoveries we have made in our journey over the
past few years; that is the purpose of this new, updated edition.
Let me provide a brief guide to the updated edition. The original Preface, the
body of the book (Chapters 1-10), and the References section for the original 10
chapters are unchanged. We felt that it was important to preserve these original
statements on the social psychology of creativity, because they largely served as the
foundation for the field as it has developed in the past several years. The Updates
directly follow each chapter; they were written by me and Mary Ann Collins,
Regina Conti, Elise Phillips, Martha Picariello, John Ruscio, and Dean Whitney.
Other colleagues provided detailed and valuable suggestions on drafts of the
Update: Steve Kramer, Beth Hennessey, Karl Hill, Heather Coon, Mark Runco,
Scott Isaksen, and Dean Simonton. Neither these colleagues nor those who coau-
thored the Updates with me can be held responsible for any errors that might be
found there. Often they argued with me about the final presentation of a particu-
lar point; sometimes I listened, but sometimes I didn't! (I should also note that al-
though I use the first person plural throughout the Updates, the "we" that I use in
describing material from the 1983 edition really refers to me alone; I am respon-
sible for most of the insightfulness and all of the wrongheadedness you might find
there.)
In the original ten chapters we have placed a special symbol in the margin be-
side each section or paragraph for which the Update contains substantial new the-
ory or data. That symbol appears in the margin beside this paragraph.
In the Updates, we review the major changes in theory and research that have
occurred in the social psychology of creativity—and the field of creativity in gen-
eral—since 1983. Although much of the theory and research reviewed in the
Updates comes from our own work, we have tried to provide an overview of the
work done by others in the field as well.
Much of my research over the past 12 years has been supported by external
agencies and foundations, and I gratefully acknowledge their assistance: the
National Institute for Child Health and Human Development, the National
Institute of Mental Health, the Exxon Education Foundation, and the Center for
Innovation Management Studies at Lehigh University.
A great many collaborators have contributed to my research—graduate stu-
dents, undergraduate students, research assistants, research associates, and faculty
colleagues. I wish to single out two individuals who have been particularly influ-
ential in developing this program of research over the past decade, and whose pro-
ductive contributions have proved to be invaluable. Beth Hennessey began work-
ing with me as a graduate student in 1981, and after playing a seminal role in
much of the research reported in this Update began a career as a faculty member
at Wellesley College. In that capacity, she has continued to serve as a valued re-
search associate, colleague, and friend. Karl Hill too began as a graduate student
at Brandeis (in 1983) and during his years in my laboratory began to move the re-
search program toward more complex, ecologically valid models. Karl continued
Preface to the Updated Edition xiii
to make valuable contributions to this work during his years as a faculty member
at Wellesley College and then as a researcher at the University of Washington. I am
most appreciative for all that Karl has given us, professionally and personally, over
the years. Other collaborators include Kim Appelmans, Bob Burnside, Michele
Castle, Mary Ann Collins, Regina Conti, Heather Coon, Barbara Grossman, Nur
Gryskiewicz, Stan Gryskiewicz, Jessica Guite, Jenifer Harlem, Kathleen Holt,
Nancy Koester, Marcie Korman, Tom Leahy, Ayelet Meron, Jill Nemiro, Elise
Phillips, Martha Picariello, Sara Pollak, Shari Rist, John Ruscio, Amy Silverman,
Debby Stephens, Monica Sultan, Sylvester Taylor, Sandra Teare, Elizabeth Tighe,
and Dean Whitney. I am grateful for the camaraderie, the intellectual stimulation,
and the productive work that these collaborators have given me. In particular, the
members of "Amabile's Research Group" (ARG) during my 18 years at Brandeis
University proved that it is possible to have high-level meetings that are consis-
tently challenging, productive, and fun.
My new home, the Harvard Business School, has presented me with an exciting
new set of colleagues whose diverse perspectives and challenging questions have
already had a positive impact on the ideas expressed in the Updates.
My thinking has also been shaped these past several years by a number of col-
leagues in the field through their written work, their conversations with me, and
their conference presentations: Frank Barron, Mike Csikszentmihalyi, Howard
Gardner, Scott Isaksen, Michael Kirton, Sid Parnes, David Perkins, Mark Runco,
Dorie Shallcross, Dean Simonton, Moe Stein, and Bob Sternberg. I found certain
research conferences to be particularly stimulating: the 1988 Pitzer College cre-
ativity conference, the 1990 Harvard Graduate School of Education research con-
ference, the 1992 International Creativity and Innovation Networking
Conference, the 1994 KAI researchers' workshop, and many research presenta-
tions in the Creative Education Foundation's annual Creative Problem-Solving
Institutes. I am grateful to my colleagues who organized and contributed to these
conferences, and to the organizations that supported them.
I also wish to acknowledge the encouragement I received from the Creative
Education Foundation in undertaking this update, and the excellent support that
Michelle Baxter and the folks at Westview Press have given to me.
Finally, I wish to acknowledge my debt of gratitude to my parents, Charles and
Carmela Amabile, who aroused in me a passionate intellectual curiosity, and to
my husband, Steven Kramer, and my daughter, Christene Dejong, who continu-
ally inspire me to think and live creatively.
I invite the reader to enter into this puzzle of creativity and to consider the re-
wards of patiently trying to fill in the gaps.
Teresa M. Amabile
Preface to the 1983 Edition
The ideas presented in this book have been incubating for over 25 years. I was in
the first grade, I believe, when the ideas that eventually developed into this social
psychology of creativity first began to germinate. The occasion was art class, a
weekly Friday afternoon event during which we were given small reproductions of
the great masterworks and asked to copy them on notepaper using the standard
set of eight Crayola® crayons. I had left kindergarten the year before with encour-
agement from the teacher about developing my potential for artistic creativity.
During these Friday afternoon exercises, however, I developed nothing but frus-
tration. Somehow, DaVinci's "Adoration of the Magi" looked wrong after I'd fin-
ished with it. I wondered where that promised creativity had gone.
I began to believe then that the restrictions placed on my artistic endeavors
contributed to my loss of interest and spontaneity in art. When, as a social psy-
chologist, I began to study intrinsic motivation, it seemed to me that this motiva-
tion to do something for its own sake was the ingredient that had been missing in
those strictly regimented art classes. It seemed that intrinsic motivation, as de-
fined by social psychologists, might be essential to creativity. My research program
since then has given considerable support to that notion. As a result, the social
psychology of creativity presented in this book gives prominence to social vari-
ables that affect motivational orientation.
The social psychology of creativity is such a new field of investigation that the
phrase itself is almost impossible to find in the creativity literature. I first came
across it shortly after I began my program of research. In a 1975 article, D. K.
Simonton called for the development of a social psychology of creativity
(Simonton, 1975a). His own work since then has been invaluable in providing in-
formation on the relationship between social environments and creative produc-
tivity over long periods of time. Simonton's archival research, which differs in
many respects from mine, is reviewed at length in Chapter 8.
Aside from Simonton's work and my own, there is almost no empirical research
on the impact of specific social factors on creativity. Creativity researchers have
instead concentrated primarily on individual differences in creative abilities or
constellations of personality traits that characterize outstandingly creative per-
sons. While those areas of inquiry are important, there are a number of reasons to
develop a social psychology of creativity. On a practical level, social variables rep-
resent one of the most promising avenues for influencing creative behavior. There
is not much that can be done about innate abilities and personality characteris-
tics. Furthermore, although cognitive skills necessary for creative performance
xv
xvi Preface to the 1983 Edition
can be developed, this process normally occurs over relatively long periods of
time. By contrast, social environments influencing creativity can be changed eas-
ily and can have immediately observable effects on performance.
On a theoretical level, it is important to consider motivational variables in
analyses of the creative process. This approach can contribute to theoretical social
psychology by describing the impact of "traditional" social-psychological vari-
ables on cognitive performance, specifically creative performance. It can also con-
tribute to theories of creativity by introducing a consideration of social factors
and the motivational mechanisms by which they influence creativity.
The case for a social psychology of creativity is argued more fully in Chapter 1.
There, I review the writings of several notably creative persons who have de-
scribed the impact of social factors on their creativity. These arguments are then
considered in the context of previous empirical research. In Chapter 2, I review
existing definitions of creativity and methods for assessing creativity and, in
Chapter 3,1 present the definitions and assessment techniques I have applied in
my own research. Chapter 4 outlines the theoretical framework that guides the
discussion of creativity throughout the book. (A shorter discussion of the mate-
rial in Chapters 2, 3, and 4 can be found in Amabile [1982b, 1983]).
Empirical research on social factors influencing creativity is presented in
Chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8. Although much of the research in Chapters 5, 6, and 7 is
mine, I also include a fairly exhaustive review of the work other researchers have
done on evaluation, reward, choice, social facilitation, modeling, motivational
orientation, and other social variables that might affect creativity. In Chapter 9,1
draw practical implications from the research reviewed. In Chapter 10,1 outline
future research directions for a social psychology of creativity.
This book does not exhaustively review all previous creativity research. Rather,
it reviews work on personality, testing, cognition, and creativity training that is
most relevant to a social-psychological perspective on creativity. Information from
this previous work is integrated with current social-psychological research in my
attempt to lay the foundation for a comprehensive social psychology of creativity.
This book is clearly not a complete statement. It is, instead, a description of the cur-
rent state of the art and an outline of what a comprehensive model might be.
The research reported in this book was supported by a Young Scholars grant
from the Foundation for Child Development, a series of Biomedical Research
Support Grants from the National Institutes of Health, and a predoctoral fellow-
ship from the National Institute of Mental Health. A grant from the Mazer Family
Fund at Brandeis University was invaluable in the preparation of this manuscript.
All of this support is gratefully acknowledged.
Several institutions generously allowed me and my students to conduct one or
more of these studies within their walls: St. Jude's School in Waltham,
Massachusetts, St. Clements's School in Somerville, Massachusetts, the Charles E.
Cashman School in Amesbury, Massachusetts, the Lemberg Day Care Center at
Preface to the 1983 Edition xvii
Brandeis University, and the Veteran's Administration Hospital at Brockton,

Massachusetts.
Dozens of people helped me develop the ideas presented here, conduct the re-
search I report, and work this manuscript into its final form. First, after the debt
of gratitude I owe my first teachers for making me wonder where my "creative po-
tential" had gone, I owe thanks to my graduate mentors at Stanford, Mark Lepper
and Lee Ross, for their part in the early development of my hypotheses on cre-
ativity. It was Mark's research and theorizing on intrinsic motivation that led me
to consider the impact of motivational state on creative performance. Both Mark
and Lee encouraged me in the risky business of creativity research and spent long
hours discussing with me my earliest ideas on creativity. The other members of
my doctoral dissertation committee, Daryl Bern and Philip Zimbardo, also gave
me helpful insights at the earliest stages of this work.
Many colleagues, students, and friends contributed to this research. Steven
Berglas and Ellen Langer collaborated with me on studies reported in this book,
as did my graduate students, Margaret Stubbs, Beth Hennessey, and Maureen
Whalen, and my undergraduate students, Phyllis Goldfarb, Shereen Brackfield,
Lisa Berman, Donna Capotosto, and Nancy Goldberg. Anne Sandoval did a mar-
velous job with the data analyses for many of these studies. Several research assis-
tants helped to conduct the studies, analyze the data, or locate resource material
for this book: Barry Auskern, Linda Blazer, Tony Cadena, Scott Carlin, Ronit
Goldlust, Barbara Grossman, Marie Handel, Leah Kaufman, Chihiro Mukai,
Christopher Patsos, Gail Rubin, and Julia Steinmetz. In addition, my sisters,
Carolyn Amabile and Phyllis Amabile, gave me important assistance in planning
and conducting one of the studies described here.
Others contributed to the preparation of this book in various ways. Students in
my "Psychology of Creativity" course at Brandeis have challenged and expanded
my ideas on creativity. Teri Buchanan of Chevron U.S.A. most graciously provided
me with complete transcripts from Chevron's 1981 national creativity exhibit.
Verna Regan, Judy Woodman, and Karen Diehl of the psychology office at
Brandeis helped to prepare pieces of the manuscript at various points. And Bill
Harrington of Computer City helped to keep my Apple II-Plus smoothly process-
ing the words that are served up here.
Although they cannot be held responsible for flaws in this book, several col-
leagues can be credited with helping to clarify my ideas and my prose. Robert
Kidd, my advising editor, not only suggested this project initially, but he also pro-
vided generous encouragement throughout and helpful comments on a first draft
of the book. Kenneth Gergen, Robert Hogan, Dean Keith Simonton, and David
Campbell offered valuable suggestions for Chapters 2, 4, 8, and 9, respectively.
Many other colleagues have given me comments over the past three years on
drafts of proposals or manuscripts that found their way in some form into this
book: Reid Hastie, Maurice Hershenson, Ray Knight, Ellen Langer, Leslie
xviii Preface to the 1983 Edition
McArthur, Ricardo Morant, Harvey Pines, David Schneider, Mark Snyder,

Margaret Stubbs, Mick Watson, and Art Wingfield.
The staff of Springer-Verlag provided just the right blend of freedom, encour-
agement, guidance, and friendship to keep my motivation and creativity near
their highest levels.
Finally, I owe my biggest debt of gratitude to my husband, William Dejong. In
countless ways, he has been a true colleague and friend throughout the seven years
of this research program. He discussed my ideas on creativity with me at every
stage and was instrumental in their refinement. He helped as I developed and im-
proved the research paradigm. Most importantly, he read and edited the entire
first draft of this manuscript—a task which he did not take lightly. Bill's com-
ments on conceptualization, consistency, and organization, together with his line-
by-line editing, rendered this book considerably more readable than it would oth-
erwise have been.
But Bill's contributions go far beyond those he made as a psychologist. He pro-
vided me with the time, space, and encouragement I needed to complete this proj-
ect, and he did so by performing a number of acts that were clearly above and be-
yond the call of duty—from serving cups of tea and administering shoulder rubs
as I hunched over the word processor at 2 A.M., to assuming the lion's share (and
the lioness's, too) of child care for our two-year-old, Christene, to sending me off
for a week at Cape Cod to complete the finishing touches on the book. Quite sim-
ply, this is his book, too.
T.M.A.
Part One
Understanding and
Assessing Creativity
1
The Case for a Social
Psychology of Creativity
It is nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have not
yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry; for this delicate little plant,
aside from stimulation, stands mainly in need of freedom; without this it goes to
wreck and ruin without fail. It is a very grave mistake to think that the enjoyment
of seeing and searching can be promoted by means of coercion and a sense of duty.
Einstein, 1949, p. 19
In this surprisingly lyrical passage from his autobiography, Einstein sounds a

theme that will be repeated throughout this book: largely because they affect mo-
tivation, social factors can have a powerful impact on creativity.
To understand creativity, two basic questions must be answered. How is creative
performance different from ordinary performance? What conditions are most fa-
vorable to creative performance—what personal abilities and characteristics, what
social environments? With this book, I hope to lay the foundation for a social psy-
chology of creativity. In this endeavor, I will concentrate on the second question by
considering the social conditions that are most conducive to creativity. In examin-
ing the impact of social factors on creative performance, however, it is also neces-
sary to consider the ways in which creative performance is different from ordinary
performance. Thus, throughout the book, both questions will be addressed.
A Gap in Creativity Research

There are two reasons for developing a social psychology of creativity. The first,
obvious reason is simply that there has previously been no such discipline. There
is little relevant theory, there is only a small research literature on the effects of
specific social and environmental influences on creativity and, more importantly,
there are virtually no experimental studies of the effects of such influences.
Clearly, this is not because there are few creativity studies overall. In 1950,
Psychological Abstracts had 11 listings under "Creativity," less than .2% of the total
number of articles abstracted. In 1960, this category represented .4% of the total;
in 1966, it accounted for .8%, and by 1970 creativity articles made up fully 1% of
3
4 Case for a Social Psychology of Creativity
all publications listed. Few of these studies were experimental, though, and even
fewer concerned social-psychological factors. Between 1976 and 1978, no articles
on creativity were published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology,
Psychological Review or the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. One article
that could be considered related to creativity appeared in Cognitive Psychology,
one in Psychological Bulletin, and four in the Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. During that same period, however, over 600 creativity articles were
published in less experimentally oriented journals.
If creativity researchers have not been doing experimental studies of social-
psychological effects on creative performance (and clearly they have not), what
have they been doing? The major emphasis in creativity research over the past
three decades has been on personality studies of creative individuals. This em-
phasis was directly predicted—or, perhaps, initiated—by Guilford in 1950: "the
psychologist's problem is that of creative personality" (p. 444).
This research has taken several different forms. One long-standing approach
involves the study of biographies and autobiographies of well-known creative in-
dividuals, attempting to define their peculiar qualities of intellect and personal-
ity (Galton, 1870; Cox, 1926). A second approach to the examination of individ-
ual differences in creative ability is the intensive laboratory study of one or a few
creative individuals. Research carried out by MacKinnon and Barron
(MacKinnon, 1962) at the Institute of Personality Assessment and Research at
Berkeley is typical of this approach. These researchers carried out "living-in" as-
sessments of artists and scientists who had been reliably nominated as creative by
their peers. Over a weekend, each subject would be formally interviewed by dif-
ferent individuals, and would complete a large battery of personality and intelli-
gence tests. Finally, the most common variety of individual-difference research
on creativity examines ordinary individuals. Typically, an average population is
chosen and the members are given personality, intelligence, and creativity tests.
Those who achieve high creativity scores are compared along the other assess-
ment dimensions with those who score low (e.g., Wallach & Kogan, 1965).
Some creativity research has focused on issues other than individual differ-
ences. For example, Newell, Shaw, and Simon (1962) have considered the cogni-
tive skills necessary for creativity. They describe an information-processing ap-
proach to the problem, one in which creative activity is seen as the application of
particular set-breaking heuristics. Their relatively sophisticated description of
the creative process is linked to computer-based notions of human intellectual
abilities. In contrast to the approach of Newell et al. (1962), most other work on
the cognitive skills involved in creativity is less theoretical, relying on common-
sense notions of the creative process and, occasionally, empirical findings from
industry and education. The most familiar work in this category, Osborn's (1963)
"brain-storming" program, is prototypical: sets of rules or heuristics are taught
as guidelines for the generation of creative solutions to problems. Subsequently,
ideas generated by people who have been trained in the program are compared
with those of people who have not.
Case for a Social Psychology of Creativity 5
Finally, there have been a modest number of studies examining the effects of par-
ticular social or physical environments on creativity. Some studies have compared
two populations from different environments on creativity test performance. For
example, open classrooms have been compared to traditional classrooms (e.g.,
Klein, 1975), and large-city classrooms have been compared to those from smaller
cities (Torrance et al, 1960). Other studies have used biographical data to investi-
gate the effects of home and religious influences on the creativity of eminent peo-
ple (e.g., Roe, 1952), or historical data to uncover the social, political, and cultural
environments that foster or inhibit creativity (e.g., Simonton, 1975a).
The most active area of creativity research, then, has been the description of the
peculiar characteristics of famous or widely recognized creative people, living and
dead, or the description of differences in personality and intellect between people
who do well on creativity tests and people who do not. Implicit in much of this work
is the assumption that the important characteristics of creative people are largely in-
nate (or at least largely immalleable), and that these characteristics clearly and reli-
ably separate creative people from noncreative people.
As a result of the focus on individual differences, some potentially important
areas of inquiry into creativity have been virtually ignored. There has been a con-
centration on the creative person, to the exclusion of "creative situations"—i.e., cir-
cumstances conducive to creativity. There has been a narrow focus on internal de-
terminants of creativity to the exclusion of external determinants. And, within
studies of internal determinants, there has been an implicit concern with "genetic"
factors to the exclusion of contributions from learning and the social environment.
Previous research on creativity has had fundamentally different aims, in most re-
spects, from those of a social psychology of creativity. Studies on the personality
characteristics of outstandingly creative individuals have been concerned with iden-
tifying particular clusters of traits that can accurately describe such individuals. To
an extent, these studies have been successful in fulfilling that goal. Studies on the
characteristics that distinguish people who do well on creativity tests from those
who do not do well are also concerned with individual-level description and, per-
haps, with prediction. Again, this research has met with some success. Cognitive
psychologists studying the creative process have identified some operating proce-
dures of the human cognitive system that seem to lead with a high probability to
novel and useful solutions. In contrast to these research endeavors, a social psychol-
ogy of creativity aims to identify particular social and environmental conditions
that can positively or negatively influence the creativity of most individuals.
Some Social Psychological Stories

The second reason for developing a social psychology of creativity is more im-
portant than the simple dearth of studies in this area: Social and environmental
1. When this symbol appears beside a paragraph, it means that the Update to this chapter contains sub-
stantially new theory or data on this point.
factors seem to play a crucial role in creative performance. There is considerable

informal evidence that social-psychological factors have a significant impact on
the productivity and creativity of outstanding individuals. Most of this evidence
comes from autobiographies, letters, journals, and other first-person accounts by
scientists, artists, writers, and others generally acknowledged for their creative
achievements. Certainly, caution must be exercised in the use of such sources as
evidence of actual psychological phenomena. One poet herself expressed doubt in
the ability of creative persons to provide insight into their creativity:
In answering the question, How are poems made? my instinctive answer is a flat, "I don't
know." It makes not the slightest difference that the question as asked me refers solely to
my own poems, for I know as little about how they are made as I do of anyone else's.
What I do know about them is only a millionth part of what there must be to know. I
meet them where they touch consciousness, and that is already a considerable distance
along the road of evolution. (Lowell, 1930, p. 24)
There are three reasons, however, for considering first-person reports as legiti-
mate sources of background material for developing a social psychology of cre-
ativity. First, the main focus of interest is not on introspections about thinking
processes (which, as Lowell noted, are bound to be inaccurate or at least incom-
plete). Rather, the main focus is on creative persons' reports of social factors that
impinged on them and the apparent stimulation or inhibition of their work that
followed. Second, these reports are used only as sources of hypotheses about so-
cial factors, and not as tests of those hypotheses. Finally, although particular cre-
ative persons might certainly have experienced idiosyncratic reactions to social
and environmental influences, if certain factors are repeatedly cited as important
by creative people, it is likely that a real phenomenon is being identified.
Several creative people have provided excellent accounts of their daily working
lives, often affording insight into influential social forces. (Not surprisingly, the
majority of such accounts—particularly the more richly descriptive ones—come
from writers.) In many of these reports, social forces are cited as harmful to cre-
ativity. This creates a peculiar paradox: May we accept the notion that such forces
are indeed detrimental to creativity, if we draw the evidence from persons who
distinguished themselves for their highly creative work? It seems more appropri-
ate to find such evidence in the working lives of individuals who were never able
to achieve wide acclaim for their work. But these individuals, of course, are not to
be found among the names catalogued in collections of autobiographies, journals,
and personal letters. We are forced, then, to use as a preliminary data source the
writings of creative individuals who experienced normal peaks and depressions in
their creative productivity, and then to examine experimentally the social forces
that appear to have covaried with those fluctuations.
First-person accounts of creative activity contain ample evidence on the major
issue considered in this book: the creativity-enhancing effect of working on some-
thing for its own sake, and the creativity-undermining effect of working on some-
thing for the sake of meeting an external goal. This contrast between internal (or
intrinsic) and external (or extrinsic) motivation appears repeatedly in these ac-
counts and, because of this obvious importance, it appears repeatedly in the so-
cial psychology of creativity developed in later chapters.
Albert Einstein: From External to Internal Control

Although Einstein wrote little of his life and work, what he did record contains a
recurrent theme: His interest in science and, presumably, his creativity, were un-
dermined by forces that exerted external control over his work. As a youth, he at-
tended a regimented, militaristic school in Germany where the pressures of exam
period so overwhelmed him that he temporarily lost his interest in science which
was, even at that time, quite substantial. "This coercion had such a detering effect
upon me that, after I had passed the final examination, I found the consideration
of any scientific problems distasteful to me for an entire year" (1949, p. 18).
Partly in an attempt to escape from such a strictly regimented learning envi-
ronment, Einstein left Munich for Zurich when he was 15, hoping to enroll in the
Polytechnic Institute there. To his dismay, however, he failed the entrance exami-
nation and was required to enroll in a Swiss school for remedial coursework.
According to one Einstein analyst (Holton, 1972), this episode represented a turn-
ing point in Einstein's schooling and, perhaps, in his scientific thinking as well. In
sharp contrast to what he had known, this school was humanistic in orientation,
stressing the individual's unencumbered search for knowledge. This social atmos-
phere was ideally suited to Einstein's independent style of thinking and working.
There was little emphasis on memorization, much emphasis on individual labo-
ratory work and student-initiated investigation, and a concentration on the de-
velopment of relaxed, democratic exchanges between students and teachers. To
the end of his life, Einstein remembered this school fondly: "It made an unforget-
table impression on me, thanks to its liberal spirit and the simple earnestness of
the teachers who based themselves on no external authority" (Holton, 1972, p.
106). It was here that Einstein devised the first Gedankenexperiment that would
lead him to the theory of relativity.
Other creators have resisted external attempts to control their behavior. For ex-
ample, Woody Allen reports enjoying his work as a stand-up comedian and a
writer far more than his work as a filmmaker precisely because other people have
so much more control over various aspects of filmmaking; in his other pursuits,
he alone is in complete control of the outcome (Lax, 1975). Like many highly cre-
ative individuals, Allen shuns tasks that he feels pressured to do but earnestly at-
tacks work that meets his own interests. He regularly played hooky from school as
a child, and flunked out of NYU after his first semester. (The courses he failed in
college included film production.) Starting at an early age, with great consistency,
he rejected the expectations that others had for his performance. Rather than at-
tending school, he would wander around Manhattan observing people or visiting
magic stores or watching movies. Rather than conforming to someone else's no-
tion of his proper education, he taught himself filmmaking, music, literature, phi-
losophy, history, and magic. On the night he was awarded an Oscar for Annie Hall,
he was doing what he always did on Monday night, and what he clearly preferred
to society's recognition—playing clarinet with his jazz group in Manhattan.
The rejection of external constraints is evident in the writing of D.H. Lawrence,
who wrote to a friend, "I always say, my motto is £Art for my sake.' If I want to
write, I write—and if I don't want to, I won't" (Allen, 1948, p. 225). Joyce Carol
Oates suggests that her underlying reason for writing is the intrinsic pleasure that
reading something good brings: "I write to discover what it is / will have written.
A love of reading stimulates the wish to write—so that one can read, as a reader,
the words one has written" (1982, p. 1). And Picasso said, "When we invented cu-
bism, we had no intention of inventing cubism, but simply of expressing what was
in us. Nobody drew up a program of action, and though our friends the poets fol-
lowed our efforts attentively, they never dictated to us" (Zervos, 1952, p. 51).
Even the minor daily demands of relatives, friends, and colleagues can act as so-
cial constraints that undermine creativity. It appears that highly creative individ-
uals must often resist those sources of external control, as well. Charles Dickens
bluntly pointed this out in answer to a friend's invitation:
"It is only half-an-hour"—"It is only an afternoon"—"It is only an evening," people say
to me over and over again; but they don't know that it is impossible to command one's
self sometimes to any stipulated and set disposal of five minutes—or that the mere con-
sciousness of an engagement will sometimes worry a whole day. These are the penalties
paid for writing books. Who ever is devoted to an art must be content to deliver himself
wholly up to it, and to find his recompense in it. I am grieved if you suspect me of not
wanting to see you, but I can't help it; I must go in my way whether or no. (Allen, 1948,
p.230)
Anne Sexton: Coping with External Constraint

In Anne Sexton's letters to friends, colleagues, and relatives (Sexton & Ames,
1977), one attitude toward her writing is prominent: a consistently high level of
intrinsic motivation, a motivation to write poetry primarily because it was some-
thing she loved to do. Perhaps this should be expected of someone who, as a
housewife at the age of 28, watched an Educational Television program called
"How to Write a Sonnet" and decided to give it a try. She enjoyed it so much that,
for the rest of her 46 years, she never stopped writing poetry. It became first her
passionate avocation and then her vocation, carried out over obstacles that in-
cluded a traveling-salesman husband, two young children, a household to run,
and repeated bouts with serious depression. In an introduction to Sexton's letters,
her daughter says, "Very quickly she established a working routine in a corner of
the already crowded dining room. Piled high with worksheets and books, her desk
constantly overflowed onto the dining room table; she wrote in every spare
minute she could steal from childtending and housewifely duties" (p. 29).
Throughout her career as a writer, Sexton struggled (usually with success)

against several types of external constraints, including evaluation, competition,
and rewards. She once wrote to her psychiatrist, for example, that she had become
a "cheap artist" since winning a Radcliffe grant, that success of this type was not
good for her. At times, though, she was so obsessed with making as much money
as possible that she would consider doing projects only for their commercial
value:
About the little whiz-bang piece (book, whatever) on psychiatrists.... a desperate at-
tempt on my part to write something that will make me some money. . . . it is supposed
to be funny and awful and a little nutty, i.e., not literature but rather a cheap but possi-
bly commercial thing, supplemented with cartoons and all. I don't want my name on it.
Not that my name isn't good enough but the book isn't good enough for my name. . ..
(Sexton & Ames, 1977, p. 241)
Sexton seemed to be generally aware, however, of the detrimental effects that

excessive concern with reward could have on creativity. When her friend W. D.
Snodgrass won the Pulitzer Prize for poetry, she cautioned him against losing his
original intrinsic motivation for writing:
So okay. "Heart's Needle" is a great poem. But you have better than that inside you. To
hell with their prize and their fame. You've got to sit down now and write some more
"real" . .. write me some blood. That is why you were great in the first place. Don't let
prizes stop you from your original courage, the courage of an alien. Be still, that alien,
who wrote "real" when no one really wanted it. Because, that is the only thing that will
save (and I do mean save) other people. Prizes won't. Only you will. (Sexton & Ames,
1977, pp. 109-110).
Sexton's cautious and ambiguous attitudes toward reward for creative work are
captured well in this passage from a letter to her agent: "I am in love with money,
so don't be mistaken, but first I want to write good poems. After that I am anx-
ious as hell to make money and fame and bring the stars all down" (pp. 287-288).
In addition to overcoming her concerns about money, Sexton also struggled to
avoid an excessive focus on external evaluation. One of her earliest poetry men-
tors, Robert Lowell, told her once to "write ten more really good poems," and she
immediately found herself incapable of writing anything until she could decide
that Lowell's dictum was of no importance. Like other creative writers, Sexton saw
publication and critical acclaim as a kind of addictive drug; pleasing at first, it is
never enough and quickly becomes the misplaced focus of one's work. She single-
mindedly fought to remain her own critic, instead of allowing the outside world
to dictate the worth and direction of her work. Indeed, she once facetiously sug-
gested that poems be published anonymously to avoid this trap. Her advice to
Erica Jong (after the publication of Jong's second novel) captures the essence of
Sexton's ability to avoid the undermining effects of this social constraint:
Don't dwell on the book's reception. The point is to get on with it—you have a life's
work ahead of you—no point in dallying around waiting for approval. . . . You have the
gift—and with it comes responsibility—you mustn't neglect or be mean to that gift—
you must let it do its work. It has more rights than the ego that wants approval. (Sexton
& Ames, p. 414).
Despite her occasional focus on external praise and tangible reward, Sexton's
primary concentration on the intrinsic satisfaction of writing was evident in a let-
ter she wrote to her mother shortly after her work in poetry had begun:
Although there is nothing new in the manner in which I have written these, it seems new
to most poet tasters. I do not write for them. Nor for you. Not even for the editors. I want
to find something and I think at least "today" I think I will. Reaching people is mighty
important, I know, but reaching the best of me is most important right now. (Sexton &
Ames, pp. 32-33)
In keeping with this intrinsic orientation, Sexton often did succeed in functioning
as her own worst critic. On more than one occasion, she sent poems to magazine
editors virtually asking them not to print the poems because they did not meet her
own high standards. "Now . . . the magazine acceptance ceased to work—now it's
got to be a Good Poem (worst critic Anne Sexton)" (p. 78). From time to time,
when she struggled with a loss of intrinsic motivation brought about by a fear of
external reactions to her work, she attempted to explicitly reject external goals:
"my ambition to write good poems is going to stop me from daring to write bad
ones. But I feel a new confidence somewhere, a new daring... to write for its own
sake and give up the goal. I am going (I hope) to love my poems again and bring
them forth like children . . . even if they are ugly" (p. 153).
Sylvia Plath: A Losing Battle with External Constraint

If Anne Sexton appears to have been primarily driven by intrinsic motivation,
Sylvia Plath appears to have struggled unsuccessfully for most of her working life
against some powerful extrinsic motivations. Her earliest attempts at publication
of poetry and fiction met with marked success; by the time she graduated from
Smith College, she had won various writing awards, published in national maga-
zines, served as guest editor at Mademoiselle magazine, and won a Fulbright schol-
arship to study at Cambridge. A desire to regain this early success that seemed so
effortless, however, bedeviled her through persistent writer's blocks in later years:
"Suddenly my life, which had always clearly defined immediate and long-range
objectives—a Smith scholarship, a Smith degree, a won poetry or story contest, a
Fulbright, a Europe trip, a lover, a husband—has or appears to have none"
(Hughes & McCullough, 1982, p. 251).
Plath struggled with social constraints of many forms. Through her tortured
adolescence and early adulthood, she repeatedly imagined the possible devastat-
ing effects that conventional marriage could have on her creativity: "I desire the
things which will destroy me in the end. . . . I wonder if art divorced from normal
and conventional living is as vital as art combined with living: in a word, would
marriage sap my creative energy and annihilate my desire for written and pictor-
ial expression" (Hughes & McCullough, 1982, p. 23).
Clearly, though, the greatest burden that impeded Plath's writing during her
postcollege years is an extrinsic constraint that, perhaps more than any other spe-
cific social factor, appears to undermine the creativity of outstanding individuals:
the expectation of external evaluation, and the attendant concern with external
recognition. Plath's excessive concern with recognition often resulted in jealousy
and competitive rage. For example, after writing one poem of pure description,
she felt disgusted with her effort because, unlike Adrienne Rich, she seemed inca-
pable of "getting philosophy" into her poems: "Until I do I shall lag behind A. C.
R." (Hughes & McCullough, 1982, p. 296). Repeatedly, she was consumed by her
desire to achieve more than others with whom she compared herself. "Yes, I want
the world's praise, money & love, and am furious with anyone, especially with
anyone I know or who has had a similar experience, getting ahead of me" (p. 305).
On many occasions, these concerns clearly interfered with Plath's ability to work:
All I need now is to hear that G. S. [George Starbuck] or M. K. [Maxine Kumin] has won
the Yale and get a rejection of my children's book. A. S. [Anne Sexton] has her book ac-
cepted at Houghton Mifflin and this afternoon will be drinking champagne. Also an
essay accepted by PJHH, the copycat. But who's to criticize a more successful copycat.
Not to mention a poetry reading at McLean. . . . And now my essay, on Withens, will
come back from PJHH, and my green-eyed fury prevents me from working, (p. 304)
Plath was fully aware that her early success had led her to become dependent
on—almost addicted to—positive evaluation from others.
I have been spoiled, so spoiled by my early success with Seventeen, with Harper's, and
Mademoiselle, I figured if I ever worked over a story and it didn't sell, or wrote a piece
for practice and couldn't market it, something was wrong. I was gifted, talented—oh, all
the editors said so—so why couldn't I expect big returns for every minute of writing?
(Hughes & McCullough, 1982, p. 250)
Repeatedly, Plath realized that she was obsessed with the idea of publication of her
work, obsessed with a fear that she might not be admired and esteemed.
Furthermore, she realized that this obsession was undermining her efforts to write
creatively: "I dream too much of fame, posturings, a novel published, not people
gesturing, speaking, growing and cracking into print" (p. 180)
Like Sexton, Plath tried consciously to adopt a more intrinsic orientation: "ed-
itors and publishers and critics and the World,... I want acceptance there, and to
feel my work good and well-taken. Which ironically freezes me at my work, cor-
rupts my nunnish labor of work-for-itself-as-its-own-reward" (Hughes &
McCullough, 1982, p. 305). And, like Sexton, Plath attempted to distance herself
from the constraint of external evaluation, to diminish its salience. She occasion-
ally resolved, for example, to avoid showing her creative efforts to her poet-hus-
band. At other times, she resolved to shut out all thought of critics except herself
and her husband: "So I will try to wean myself into doing daily poetic exercises
with a hell-who-cares-if-they're-published feeling. That's my trouble. . . . The
main problem is breaking open rich, real subjects to myself and forgetting there is
any audience but me & Ted" (p. 170). In one particularly interesting example of
self-deception, she wrote in her journal, "I must feel the pain of work a little more
& have five stories pile up here, five or ten poems there, before I start even hoping
to publish and then, not counting on it: write every story, not to publish, but to
be a better writer—and ipso facto, closer to publishing" (p. 173). At another point,
she summed up the heart of the problem: She had become trapped by the desire
for the external world to label her "a writer."
Apparently, this problem is a common one among writers and, perhaps, among
individuals in other domains of creative activity, as well. In discussing what she
saw as the major problem with American writers, Gertrude Stein remarked, "The
trouble is a simple one. They become writers. They cease being creative men and
soon they find that they are novelists or critics or poets or biographers" (Preston,
1952, p. 167). Stein pointed to Sherwood Anderson as a contrary example, some-
one who "is really and truly great because he truly does not care what he is and
has not thought what he is except a man, a man who can go away and be small in
the world's eyes and yet perhaps be one of the few Americans who have achieved
that perfect freshness of creation and passion" (p. 167).
James Watson: A Race for Success

Almost from the day James Watson entered the Cambridge laboratory where he
met and began to collaborate with Francis Crick, one motive was clear in their
pursuit of the correct descriptive model for DNA: "Imitate Linus Pauling and beat
him at his own game" (Watson, 1968, p. 37). They knew that they would have to
use methods and theories that had been devised by Pauling in his work on alpha-
helics. They knew that Pauling, like many chemists and biochemists, was also
working on the DNA problem. And, finally, they were certain that there was a
Nobel prize waiting for whomever first published a correct description of the
DNA molecule.
This knowledge, along with their overriding desire to win this competition, was a
salient force in Watson and Crick's work on the problem. Few pages go by in
Watson's account of the research without mention of their obsession with this com-
petition: "But if I went back to pure biology, the advantage of our small headstart
over Linus might suddenly vanish" (Watson, 1968, p. 92). "Fortunately, Linus did
not look like an immediate threat on the DNA front" (p. 93). When it appeared that
Pauling would pull ahead in the race, as it appeared from a letter he had written his
son (who was living in Cambridge and knew Watson and Crick), they despaired:
It was from his father. In addition to routine family gossip was the long-feared news that
Linus now had a structure for DNA. No details were given of what he was up to, and so
each time the letter passed between Francis and me the greater was our frustration.
Francis then began pacing up and down the room thinking aloud, hoping that in a great
intellectual fervor he could reconstruct what Linus might have done. As long as Linus
had not told us the answer, we should get equal credit if we announced it at the same
time. (p. 99)
And, when Pauling failed in his initial attempts, they were ecstatic:
Francis and I went over to the Eagle. The moment its doors opened for the evening we
were there to drink a toast to the Pauling failure. Instead of sherry, I let Francis buy me
a whiskey. Though the odds still appeared against us, Linus had not yet won his Nobel,
(p. 104)
It is impossible to estimate the impact that this fierce competition had on

Watson and Crick's creativity. Obviously, they did eventually succeed in their task.
It is possible, of course, that they would have made their discovery sooner and
with fewer false starts if they had not been so caught up in trying to beat another
researcher "at his own game." Watson, however, gives no hint of this possibility: if
anything, he seems to have viewed this competition as a spur to productivity at
best and a simple fact of life in science at worst. In any case, it is clear from
Watson's account that competition must be considered a salient social factor in
creative endeavor.
What are the effects of winning the rewards that many creative people appear
to so earnestly desire? Although, certainly, in many cases their work would be im-
possible without the support of grants, prizes, stipends, and ordinary salaries, at
least some creative individuals appear to have suffered from the receipt of salient
tangible rewards. Apparently, T. S. Eliot believed that the Nobel Prize would de-
stroy his creativity. He was actually somewhat dejected after receiving it, and when
a friend congratulated him and said, "High time!", Eliot replied, "Rather too soon.
The Nobel is a ticket to one's own funeral. No one has ever done anything after he
got it" (Simpson, 1982, p. 11). And Dostoevsky appears to have been virtually par-
alyzed by a large monetary advance for writing a novel which he had not yet even
conceived:
And as for me, this is my story: / worked and was tortured. You know what it means to
compose? No, thank God, you do not! I believe you have never written to order, by the
yard, and have never experienced that hellish torture. Having received in advance from
the Russy Viestnik so much money (Horror! 4,500 roubles). I fully hoped in the begin-
ning of the year that poesy would not desert me, that the poetical idea would flash out
and develop artistically towards the end of the year, and that I should succeed in satisfy-
ing everyone. . .. but on the 4th of December . . . I threw it all to the devil. I assure you
that the novel might have been tolerable; but I got incredibly sick of it just because it was
tolerable, and not positively good—I did not want that. (Allen, 1948, p. 231)
Thomas Wolfe: The Pressure of Success

In describing the horrendous doubt and confusion he experienced in attempting
to write his second novel, Thomas Wolfe suggests that, ironically, the positive crit-
ical response to his first work was largely responsible:
I would read about myself, for example, as one of the "younger American writers." I was
a person who, some of the critics said, was to be watched. They were looking forward to
my future book with interest and with a certain amount of apprehension. . . . Now, in-
deed, I could hear myself discussed, and somehow the fact was far more formidable than
I had dreamed that it could b e . . . . I was a young American writer, and they had hopes
and fears about my future, and what would I do, or would it be anything, nothing, much,
or little? Would the faults which they had found in my work grow worse or would I con-
quer them? Was I another flash in the pan? Would I come through? What would happen
tome? (1936, p. 14)
Not only did the positive critical reception of his first book serve to paralyze
Wolfe, but many citizens of his hometown, in which the first novel had ostensibly
been set, were outraged at what he had portrayed. In some ways, this form of ex-
ternal evaluation was even more difficult for him to put out of mind:
Month was passing into month; I had had a success. The way was opened to me. There
was only one thing for me to do and that was work, and I was spending my time con-
suming myself with anger, grief, and useless passion about the reception the book had
had in my native town, or wasting myself again in exuberant elation because of the crit-
ics and the readers' praise, or in anguish and bitterness because of their ridicule, (p. 25)
Time pressures became part of the burden success had laid on Wolfe; his "pub-
lic"—especially his critics—were awaiting his second novel. Although no pub-
lisher had given him a deadline for completion of this second manuscript, he had
a clear sense of the implicit expectations.
At any rate, while my life and energy were absorbed in the emotional vortex which my
first book had created, I was getting almost no work done on the second.... A young
writer without a public does not feel the sense of necessity, the pressure of time, as does
a writer who has been published and who must now begin to think of time schedules,
publishing seasons, the completion of his next book. I realized suddenly with a sense of
definite shock that I had let six months go by since the publication of my first book and
that, save for a great many notes and fragments, I had done nothing. (1936, p. 26)
Once the time pressure became explicit, Wolfe's despair and distraction only in-
tensified:
Almost a year and a half had elapsed since the publication of my first book and already
people had begun to ask that question which is so well meant, but which as year followed
year was to become more intolerable to my ears than the most deliberate mockery:
"Have you finished your next book yet?" "When is it going to be published?" . .. now, for
the first time, I was irrevocably committed so far as the publication of my book was con-
cerned. I began to feel the sensation of pressure, and of naked desperation, which was to
become almost maddeningly intolerable in the next three years, (pp. 49-50)
A Recurrent Theme: Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Motivation

The creative individuals whose first-person accounts of creative work I have re-
viewed here do not, of course, represent a random sample of writers, scientists,
and artists. Nonetheless, their explicit and implicit statements about the influence
of social factors on their work are in fact representative of the statements made by
many others who have distinguished themselves for their creativity. Each of these
factors appears regularly in first-person reports: a concern with evaluation expec-
tation and actual evaluation; a desire for external recognition; a focus on compe-
tition and external reward; a reaction against time pressures; a deliberate rejection
of society's demands; and a preference for internal control and intrinsic motiva-
tion over external control and extrinsic motivation.
These influences can be considered together as illustrations of one general prin-
ciple: Intrinsic motivation is conductive to creativity, but extrinsic motivation is
detrimental. It appears that when people are primarily motivated to do some cre-
ative activity by their own interest in and enjoyment of that activity, they may be
more creative than they are when primarily motivated by some goal imposed on
them by others. Although this principle appears in some form in nearly all of the
first-person accounts presented earlier, it is clear that there are large differences in
the degree to which external goals undermined creativity. Sylvia Plath, for exam-
ple, appeared to be crippled for long periods of time by a concern with evaluation
and competition and the demands that others made on her. For Anne Sexton, on
the other hand, these seem not to have been major issues. Why the difference? It
is possible that the two writers differed in their fundamental abilities and tem-
peraments. There are ways, however, in which social factors could also have played
a part. Through early socialization, Sexton might have learned strategies for ig-
noring or overcoming external constraint. Or, perhaps, there were important dif-
ferences in the levels of constraint in the working environments of these two writ-
ers. It is not possible, by simple examination of the introspective accounts, to
arrive at any reliable conclusions to this issue; experimental research is required.
In any case, however, it can be said that social psychological factors are important
in creativity and, among these, the most crucial may be those that either lead peo-
ple to concentrate on the intrinsically interesting aspects of a task or lead them to
concentrate on some extrinsic goal.
The intrinsic motivation principle will be the cornerstone of the social psy-
chology of creativity developed in this book. Before that principle is examined in
detail, however, it will be necessary to lay a methodological and conceptual foun-
dation. Chapter 2 deals with the meaning and measurement of creativity, and
Chapter 3 presents in detail a consensual assessment technique used in much of
the research that appears in later chapters. Chapter 4 presents a working model of
the creative process, highlighting the role of social-psychological factors. Chapters
in the second section of the book include research evidence on several specific fac-
tors used in tests of the intrinsic motivation hypothesis: evaluation, reward, and
task constraint of other types. In addition, these chapters present research on so-
cial factors that do not derive directly from the intrinsic motivation principle: so-
cial facilitation, modeling, and educational environments, among others. The
final section of the book includes chapters on the application of social-psycho-
logical principles to creativity enhancement and on integrating a social psychol-
ogy of creativity into a comprehensive theoretical framework.
Update
As of 1983, besides our own program of research there was only one other re-
searcher who had produced a significant body of work on the social psychology of
creativity: Dean Simonton. In the years since, many researchers and theorists have
seriously turned their attention toward the impact of social factors on creativity.
For example, Harrington and his colleagues conducted an empirical study of long-
term parental influences on creativity (Harrington et al, 1987) and developed an
"ecology of human creativity" theory that includes social influences (Harrington,
1990). Several other theorists have included social psychological factors in their re-
cent conceptualizations—for example, Csikszentmihalyi (1988) in his "systems
view of creativity," Gardner (1988) in his "interdisciplinary perspective," Gruber
(1988) in his "evolving systems" approach to creativity, Sternberg and Lubart
(1991) in their "investment theory" of creativity, and Woodman, Sawyer, and
Griffin (1993) in their interactionist theory of organizational creativity.
Although creativity theorists had, several decades earlier, speculated on the im-
portance of environmental "press" (Mooney, 1963), it is only in recent years that
creativity conferences, edited books, and journals have explicitly focused attention
on the issue (e.g., Gryskiewicz & Hills, 1992; Isaksen, Murdock, Firestien, &
Treffinger, 1993). The field of creativity research has two major new journals,
Creativity Research Journal and Creativity and Innovation Management, in addi-
tion to the long-standing Journal of Creative Behavior. Over the past few years,
many of the conceptual and empirical articles in each of these journals have dealt
explicitly or implicitly with social psychological variables. Moreover, though they
are still rare, articles on creativity have appeared with increasing frequency in
mainstream psychology journals.
Thus, it appears that the case for a social psychology of creativity has been made
successfully. It also appears that the creativity field overall has enjoyed an increase
of activity in both conceptual development and rigorous empirical research. But
the social psychology of creativity is still in its early stages, and a focus on creative
persons, creative personalities, and creativity skills still dominates the field. Even
considering the sizable advances reported in this update, there are still many
unanswered questions about social influences on creativity.
The first edition of this chapter asserted that "largely because they affect moti-
vation, social factors can have a powerful impact on creativity." With twelve more
years of research behind us, we reaffirm that basic theme. Whatever an individ-
ual's talents, domain expertise, and creative thinking skills, that individual's social
environment—the conditions under which he or she works—can significantly in-
crease or decrease the level of creativity produced. It still appears that the primary
mechanism (or at least a primary mechanism) of this influence is the individual's
motivational state. Intrinsic motivation, which is the drive to engage in some ac-
tivity because it is interesting and involving, appears to be essential for high levels
of creativity. And intrinsic motivation can be significantly affected by the social
environment.
In examining this proposition, we initially focused on individuals (both children
and adults) in experimental studies where we carefully manipulated social factors
and studied the effects on artistic and verbal creativity. The first edition of this
book reported the results of these early experiments. We have since expanded our
program of research to include problem-solving creativity and to add nonexperi-
mental methods (surveys, interviews, and archival sources) for studying influences
on the creativity of individuals, groups, and organizations. In so doing, we have
moved beyond a focus on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Although the intrin-
sic motivation principle (formerly termed the intrinsic motivation hypothesis) is
still crucial in our theory of creativity, we have paid more detailed attention to
other aspects of social influence on creativity. And, as we shall make clear in the
Update to Chapter 4, the intrinsic motivation principle itself has been revised.
Indeed, we have even expanded beyond our original concern with social psy-
chological factors, in large part because the social psychological perspective has fi-
nally begun to find its way into mainstream research and theory. The first edition
of this book presented the outline of a comprehensive theory of creativity, a the-
ory in which social and motivational factors were highlighted. As will become ev-
ident in the updates of Chapters 2 through 10, in the years since, we have at-
tempted to become more inclusive in the factors we studied and the theoretical
perspectives we incorporated. We have also attempted to move toward a compre-
hensive systems view that includes interacting networks of factors influencing—
and being influenced by—creativity. The social psychology of creativity as it was
originally conceived grew largely from a desire to explore uncharted territories of
the creativity question that stretched well beyond the personality psychology of
creativity that was then overwhelmingly dominant in the field. Now we regularly
include personality measures in our studies of social influences, and we have
begun to use cognitive measures as well. We have, we hope, begun to practice the
integration of disciplines we preached twelve years ago.
References
Adams, J. C. The relative effects of various testing atmospheres on spontaneous flexibility: A
factor of divergent thinking. Journal of Creative Behavior, 1968, 2, 187194.
Albert, R. S. Family positions and the attainment of eminence: A study of special family
experiences. Gifted Child Quarterly, 1980, 24, 8795.
Allen, W. Writers on writing. London: Phoenix House, 1948.
Allport, F. H. Social psychology. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1924.
Amabile, T. M. Effects of external evaluation on artistic creativity. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 1979, 37, 221233.
Amabile, T. M. Childrens artistic creativity: Detrimental effects of competition in a field setting.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1982, 8, 573578. (a)
Amabile, T. M. Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1982, 43, 9971013. (b)
Amabile, T. M. Social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1983, 45, 357377.
Amabile, T. M. Motivation and creativity: Effects of motivational orientation on creative writers.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1985, 48, 393399.
Amabile, T. M. , DeJong, W., & Lepper, M. Effects of externally imposed deadlines on sub
sequent intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 34, 9298.
Amabile, T. M. , & Gitomer, J. Childrens artistic creativity: Effects of choice in task materials.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1984, 10, 209215.
Amabile, T. M. , Goldberg, N., & Capotosto, D. Effects of reward and choice on adults artistic
creativity. Unpublished manuscript, Brandeis University, 1982.
Amabile, T. M. , Goldfarb, P., & Brackfield, S. C. Social influences on creativity: Evaluation,
coaction, and surveillance. Creativity Research Journal, 1990, 3, 621.
Amabile, T. M. , & Stubbs, M. L. (Eds.). Psychological research in the classroom. Elmsford,
N.Y.: Pergamon, 1982.
Amabile, T. M. , & Zingmond, R. Deadlines, type A syndrome, and creativity. Unpublished
manuscript, Brandeis University, 1982.
Anderson, B. F. The complete thinker. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1980.
Andrews, F. M. Social and psychological factors which influence the creative process. In I. A.
Taylor & J. W. Getzels (Eds.), Perspectives in creativity. Chicago: Aldine, 1975.
Andry, R. G. The short-term prisoner. London: Stevens & Sons, 1963.
Bahrick, H. P. , Fitts, P. M., & Rankin, R. E. Effects of incentive upon reactions to peripheral
stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1952, 44, 400406.
Bain, A. The senses and intellect (3rd ed.). New York: Appleton, 1874.
Baker, M. Teacher creativity and its relationship to the recognition of student creativity. Creative
Child & Adult Quarterly, 1978, 3, 106115.
276 Baker, M. Teacher creativity and its effect on student creativity. Creative Child & Adult
Quarterly, 1979, 4, 2029.
Bandura, A. Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1969.
Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. Social learning and personality development. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, & Winston, 1963.
Barron, F. The disposition toward originality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1955a, 51, 478485.
Barron, F. Threshold for the perception of human movement in inkblots. Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 1955b, 19, 3338.
Barron, F. Creative vision and expression in writing and painting. In Conference on the creative
person. Berkeley: University of California, Institute of Personality Assessment and Research,
1961.
Barron, F. Creativity. In A. Deutsch (Ed.), The encyclopedia of mental health (Vol. II). New York:
Franklin Watts, 1963.
Barron, F. The psychology of creativity. In T. Newcomb (Ed.), New directions in psychology (Vol
2). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1965.
Barron, F. Creativity and personal freedom. New York: Van Nostrand, 1968.
Bastos, L. D. An evaluation of the Torrance tests of creative thinking. Dissertation Abstracts
International, January 1974, 34, 39763977.
Bayard De Volo, C. L., & Fiebert, M. S. Creativity in the preschool child and its relationship to
parental authoritarianism. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 1977, 45, 170.
Belcher, T. L. Modeling original divergent responses: An initial investigation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 1975, 67, 351358.
Bem, D. Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 6). New York: Academic Press, 1972.
Berglas, S., Amabile, T. M., & Handel, M. Effects of evaluation on childrens artistic creativity.
Unpublished manuscript, Brandeis University, 1981.
Bergman, J. Energy levels: An important factor in identifying and facilitating the development of
giftedness in young children. Creative Child & Adult Quarterly, 1979, 4, 181188.
Berkowitz, W. R. , & Avril, G. J. Short-term sensory enrichment and artistic creativity.
Perceptual & Motor Skills, 1969, 28, 275279.
Berlyne, D. E. Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.
Berlyne, D. E. Structure and direction in thinking. New York: Wiley, 1965.
Berman, L. M. Overinclusion and the creative product: An investigation of psychotic
populations. Unpublished honors thesis, Brandeis University, 1981.
Biller, H. B. , Singer, D. L., & Fullerton, M. Sex-role development and creative potential in
kindergarten-age boys. Developmental Psychology, 1969, 1, 291296.
Birch, H. G. The role of motivational factors in insightful problem-solving. Journal of
Comparative Psychology. 1945, 38, 295317.
Bloom, B. S. Report on creativity research at the University of Chilcago. In C. Taylor (Ed.), The
1955 University of Utah research conference on the identification of creative scientific talent.
Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1956.
Bloom, B. S. , & Sosniak, L. A. Talent development vs. schooling. Educational Leadership,
1981, 8694.
Boersma, F. J. , & OBryan, K. An investigation of the relationship between creativity and
intelligence under two conditions of testing. Journal of Personality, 1968, 36, 341348.
277 Boring, E. Great men and scientific progress. Proceedings of the American Philosophical
Society, 1950, 94, 339351.
Bowers, P. Hypnosis and creativity: The search for the missing link. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 1979, 88, 564572.
Brackfield, S. C. Audience effects on artistic creativity. Unpublished honors thesis, Brandeis
University, 1980.
Brill, A. A. (Ed.). The basic writings of Sigmund Freud. New York: Random House, 1938.
Brown, F. Bereavement and lack of a parent in childhood. In E. Miller (Ed.), Foundations of
child psychiatry. Oxford, England: Pergamon, 1968.
Brown, G. I. , & Gaynor, D. Athletic action as creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 1967, 2,
155162.
Bruner, J. The conditions of creativity. In H. Gruber, G. Terrell, & M. Wertheimer (Eds.),
Contemporary approaches to creative thinking. New York: Atherton Press, 1962.
Bruner, J. S. The nature and uses of immaturity. American Psychologist, 1972, 27, 687708.
Calder, B., & Staw, B. Self-perception of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 599605.
Campbell, D. P. Take the road to creativity and get off your dead end. Allen, Texas: Argus,
1977.
Campbell, D. Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge
processes. Psychological Review, 1960, 67, 380400.
Campbell, J. A. , & Willis, J. Modifying components of creative behavior in the natural
environment. Behavior Modification, 1978, 2, 549564.
Carlsmith, J. M. , Ellsworth, P., & Aronson, E. Methods of research in social psychology.
Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1976.
Cashdan, S., & Welsh, G. S. Personality correlates of creative potential in talented high school
students. Journal of Personality, 1966, 34, 445455.
Castle, C. A statistical study of eminent women. Columbia University contributions to
philosophy and psychology, 1913, 22, 1.
Cattell, J. McK. A statistical study of eminent men. Popular Science Monthly, 1903, 62, 359377.
Cattell, R. B. The personality and motivation of the researcher from measurements of
contemporaries and from biography. In C. W. Taylor (Ed.), The Third (1959) University of Utah
Research Conference on the Identification of Creative Scientific Talent. Salt Lake City:
University of Utah Press, 1959, 7793.
Cattell, R. B. , & Butcher, H. J. The prediction of achievement and creativity. New York: Bobbs-
Merrill, 1968.
Cattell, R. B. , & Eber, H. Handbook for the sixteen personality factor questionnaire.
Champaign, Illinois: IPAT, 1968.
Chambers, J. A. Relating personality and biographical factors to scientific creativity.
Psychological Monographs, 1964, 78, (7, Whole No. 584).
Chambers, J. A. College teachers: Their effect on creativity of students. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 1973, 65, 326334.
Chatterjea, R. G. , & Mitra, A. A study of brainstorming. Manas, 1976, 23, 2328.
Check, J. F. An Analysis of differences in creative ability between white and negro students,
public, and parochial, three different grade levels, and males and females. Final Report.
Washington, D.C.: Office of Education, 1969.
278 Child, D., & Croucher, A. Divergent thinking and ability: Is there a threshold? Educational
Studies, 1977, 3, 101110.
Christensen, R. R. , Guilford, J. P., & Wilson, R. C. Relations of creative response to working
time instructions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1957, 53, 9298.
Cicirelli, V. G. Sibling constellation, creativity, IQ, and academic achievement. Child
Development, 1967, 38, 481490.
Condry, J. Enemies of exploration: Self-initiated versus other-initiated learning. Journal of
Cortes, J. B. , & Gatti, F. M. Delinquency and crime: A biopsychosocial approach. New York:
Seminar Press, 1972.
Cottrell, N. B. Performance in the presence of other human beings: Mere presence, audience,
and affiliation effects. In E. C. Simmel, R. A. Hoppe, & G. A. Milton (Eds.), Social facilitation and
imitative behavior. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1968.
Cottrell, N. B. , Wack, D. L., Sekerak, G. J., & Rittle, R. H. Social facilitation of dominant
responses by the presence of an audience and the mere presence of others. Journal of
Covington, M. V. , Crutchfield, R. S., Davies, L., & Olton, R. M. The productive thinking
program. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill, 1972.
Cox, C. Genetic studies of genius, Vol. II. The early mental traits of three hundred geniuses.
Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1926.
Cropley, A. Creativity. Longmans, Green, 1967.
Crutchfield, R. S. Conformity and character. American Psychologist, 1955, 10, 191198.
Crutchfield, R. S. Personal and situational factors in conformity to group pressure. Acta
Psychologica, 1959, 15, 386388.
Crutchfield, R. S. The creative process. In Proceedings of the Conference on The Creative
Person, University of California Alumni Center, Lake Tahoe, 1961, VI1VI16.
Crutchfield, R. Conformity and creative thinking. In H. Gruber, G. Terrell, & M. Wertheimer
(Eds.), Contemporary approaches to creative thinking. New York: Atherton Press, 1962.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. Beyond boredom and amxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. Intrinsic rewards and emergent motivation. In M. Lepper, & D. Green
(Eds.), The hidden costs of reward. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1978.
Dansky, J. Make-believe: A mediator of the relationship between play and associative fluency.
Child Development, 1980, 51, 576579.
Dansky, J., & Silverman, I. Effects of play on associative fluency in preschool-aged children.
Developmental Psychology, 1973, 9, 3843.
Dansky, J., & Silverman, I. Play: A general facilitator of fluency. Developmental Psychology,
1975, 11, 104.
Dashiell, J. F. An experimental analysis of some group effects. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1930, 25, 190199.
Datta, L. E. Birth order and potential scientific creativity. Sociometry, 1968, 31, 7688.
Datta, L. E. , & Parloff, M. B. On the relevance of autonomy: Parent-child relationship and early
scientific creativity. Proceedings of the 75th Annual Convention of the American Psychological
Association, 1967, 2, 149150.
Davis, G. A. , & Rimm, S. Characteristics of creatively gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly,
1977, 21, 546551.
279 Davis, G. A., & Subkoviak, M. J. Multidimensional analysis of a personality-based test of
creative potential. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1975, 12, 3743.
deBono, E. Lateral thinking for management. New York: American Management Association,
1971.
deCharms, R. Personal causation. New York: Academic Press, 1968.
Deci, E. Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality
Deci, E. Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic reinforcement, and inequity. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 1972, 22, 113120. (a)
Deci, E. The effects of contingent and noncontingent rewards and controls on intrinsic
motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1972, 8, 217229. (b)
Deci, E. Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum, 1975.
Deci, E. L. The psychology of self-determination. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath, Lexington
Books, 1980.
Deci, E. L. , Cascio, W. F., & Krussell, J. Sex differences, Positive feedback, in intrinsic
motivation. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association,
Washington, D.C., May 1973.
Deci, E. L. , Nezlek, J., & Sheinman, L. Characteristics of the rewarder and intrinsic motivation
of the rewardee. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, in press.
Deci, E. L. , & Ryan, R. M. The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational processes. In L.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press,
1980.
Dennis, W. Creative productivity between the ages of 20 and 80 years. Journal of Gerontology,
1966, 21, 106114.
Dentier, R. A. , & Mackler, B. Originality: Some social and personal determinants. Behavioral
Science, 1964, 9, 17.
Dewing, K. The reliability and validity of selected tests of creative thinking in a sample of
seventh-grade West Australian children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1970, 40,
3542.
Dewing, K., & Taft, R. Some characteristics of the parents of creative twelve-year olds. Journal
of Personalilty, 1973, 41, 7185.
DiVitto, B., & McArthur, L. Z. Developmental differences in the use of distinctiveness,
consensus, and consistency information for making causal attributions. Developmental
Psychology, 1978, 14, 474482.
Dixon, J. Quality versus quantity: The need to control lfor the fluency factor in originality scores
from the Torrance tests. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 1979, 2, 7079.
Domino, G. Maternal personality correlates of sons creativity. Journal of Consulting & Clinical
Psychology, 1969, 33, 180183.
Domino, G. Assessment of cinematographic creativity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1974, 30, 150154.
Drevdahl, J. E. Some developmental and environmental factors in creativity. In C. Taylor (Ed.),
Widening horizons in creativity. New York: Wiley, 1964.
Drews, E. M. A critical evaluation of approaches to the identification of gifted students. In A.
Traxler (Ed.), Measurement and evaluation in todays schools. Washington, D.C.: American
Council on Education, 1961.
DuCette, J., Wolk, S., Friedman, S. Locus of control and creativity in black and white children.
Journal of Social Psychology, 1972, 88, 297298.
280 Duncker, K. On problem solving, Psychological Monographs, 1945, 58, no. 270.
Einstein, A. Autobiography. In P. Schilpp, Albert Einstein: Philosopher-scientist. Evanston,
Illinois: Library of Living Philosophers Inc., 1949.
Eisenman, R. Birth order and artistic creativity. Journal of Individual Psychology, 1964, 20,
183185.
Eisenman, R. Creativity change in student nurses: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study.
Developmental Psychology, 1970, 3, 320325.
Eisenman, R., & Schussel, N. R. Creativity, birth order, and preference for symmetry. Journal of
Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 1970, 34, 275280.
Eisner, E. A typology of creative behavior in the visual arts. American Educational Research
Journal, 1965, 2, 125136.
El Dreny, H. The influence of dyadic interaction on originality, states of feeling and attention.
Creative Child & Adult Quarterly, 1979, 4, 9398.
Ellison, R. L. The relationship of certain biographical information to success in science. Masters
thesis, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, 1960.
Evans, T. D. Creativity, sex-role socialisation and pupil-teacher interactions in early schooling.
Sociological Review, 1979, 27, 139155.
Farnsworth, R. R. The social psychology of music. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press,
1969.
Farr, J. L. Task characteristics, reward contingency, and intrinsic motivation. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 1976, 16, 294307.
Feingold, B. D. , Mahoney, M. J. Reinforcement effects on intrinsic interst: Undermining the
overjustification hypothesis. Behavior Therapy, 1975, 6, 367377.
Feitelson, D., & Ross, G. S. The neglected factor: Play. Human Development, 1973, 16,
202223.
Feldhusen, J. F. , Treffinger, D. J., & Bahlke, S. J. Developing creative thinking: The Purdue
Creativity Program. Journal of Creative Behavior, 1970, 4, 8590.
Feldman, D. H. , Marrinan, B. M., & Hartfeldt, S. D. Transformational power as a possible index
of creativity. Psychological Reports, 1972, 30, 335338.
Feldman, D. Beyond universals in cognitive development. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, 1980.
Folger, R., Rosenfield, D., & Hays, R. P. Equity and intrinsic motivation: The role of choice.
Friedman, F., Raymond, B. A., & Feldhusen, J. F. The effects of environmental scanning on
creativity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 1978, 22, 248251.
Fuerst, K., & Zubek, J. P. Effects of sensory and perceptual deprivation on a battery of open-
ended cognitive tasks. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1968, 22, 122130.
Gakhar, S., & Luthra, S. The test-retest reliability of Torrance tests of verbal creative thinking in
a sample of ninth and tenth grade Indian children. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied
Psychology, 1973, 10, 4852.
Galton, F. Hereditary genius. London: MacMillan, London, & Appleton, 1870.
Garbarino, J. The impact of anticipated reward upon cross-age tutoring. Journal of Personality
Garfield, S. J. , Cohen, H. A., & Roth, R. M. Creativity and mental health. Journal of Educational
Research, 1969, 63, 147149.
Gary, A. L. , & Glover, J. Eye color and sex: Their relationship to modeled learning.
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 1975, 12, 425428.
281 Geen, R. G., & Gange, J. J. Drive theory of social facilitation: Twelve years of theory and
research. Psychological Bulletin, 1977, 84, 12671288.
Gergen, K. J. Toward transformation in social knowledge. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1982.
Getzels, J. W. Problem-finding and the inventiveness of solutions. Journal of Creative Behavior,
1975, 9, 1218.
Getzels, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem-finding
in art. New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1976.
Getzels, J. W. , & Jackson, P. W. Family environment and cognitive style: A study of the
sources of highly intelligent and of highly creative adolescents. American Sociological Review,
1961, 26, 351359.
Getzels, J., & Jackson, P. Creativity and intelligence: Explorations with gifted students. New
York: Wiley, 1962.
Ghiselin, B. Ultimate criteria for two levels of creativity. In C. Taylor & F. Barron (Eds.), Scientific
creativity: Its recognition and development. New York: Wiley. 1963.
Ghiselin, B., Rompel, R., & Taylor, C. W. A creative process check list: Its development and
validation. In C. W. Taylor (Ed.), Widening horizons in creativity. New York: Wiley, 1964.
Glover, J. A. Risky shift and creativity. Social Behavior & Personality, 1977, 5, 317320.
Glover, J. A. A creativity-training workshop: Short-term, long-term, and transfer effects. Journal
of Genetic Psychology, 1980, 136, 316.
Glover, J., & Gary, A. L. Procedures to increase some aspects of creativity. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 1976, 9, 7984.
Glover, J. A. , & Sautter, F. Relation of four components of creativity to risk-taking preferences.
Psychological Reports, 1977, 41, 227230.
Glucksberg, S. The influence of strength of drive on functional fixedness and perceptual
recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1962, 63, 3641.
Glucksberg, S. Problem-solving: Response competition and the influence of drive.
Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. T. Five hundred delinquent women. New York: Knopf, 1934.
Goetz, E. M. The effects of minimal praise on the creative blockbuilding of three year olds. Child
Study Journal, 1981, 11, 5567.
Golann, S. E. Psychological study of creativity. Psychological Bulletin, 1963, 60, 548565.
Goolsby, T. M. , & Helwig, L. D. Concurrent validity of the Torrance tests of creative thinking
and the Welsh figural preference test. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 1975, 35,
507508.
Gordon, W. Synectics: The development of creative capacity. New York: Harper & Row, 1961.
Gough, H. G. The California Psychological Inventory. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists
Press, 1957.
Gough, H. G. A creative personality scale for the adjective check list. Journal of Personality &
Social Psychology, 1979, 37, 13981405.
Gough, H. G. , & Heilbrun, A. B., Jr. The adjective check list manual. Palo Alto, Calif.:
Consulting Psychologists Press, 1965.
Goyal, R. P. Creativity and school climate: An exploratory study. Journal of Psychological
Researches, 1973, 17, 7780.
Graham, S. The real F. Scott Fitzgerald. New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1976.
Grant, T. N. , & Domino, D. Masculinity-feminity in fathers of creative male adolescents. Journal
of Genetic Psychology, 1976, 129, 1927.
282 Greene, D., & Leeper, M. Effects of extrinsic rewards on childrens subsequent intrinsic
interest. Child Development, 1974, 45, 11411145.
Gruber, H. E. , & Barrett, P. H. Darwin on man: A psychological study of scientific creativity.
New York: E. P. Dutton, 1974.
Guilford, J. P. Creativity. American Psychologist, 1950, 5, 444454.
Guilford, J. P. The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 1956, 53, 267293.
Guilford, J. P. Intellectual resources and their values as seen by scientists. In C. W. Taylor & F.
Barron (Eds.), Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development. New York: Wiley, 1963.
Guilford, J. P. The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
Gurman, E. B. Creativity as a function of orientation and group participation. Psychological
Reports, 1968, 22, 471478.
Haddon, F. A. , & Lytton, H. Teaching approach and the development of divergent thinking
abilities in primary schools. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1968, 38, 171180.
Haddon, F. A. , & Lytton, H. Primary education and divergent thinking abilities: Four years on.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1971, 41, 136147.
Halpin, G., & Halpin, G. The effect of motivation on creative thinking abilities. Journal of
Creative Behavior, 1973, 7, 5153.
Halpin, G., Halpin, G., Miller, E., & Landreneau, E. Observer characteristics related to the
imitation of a creative model. Journal of Psychology, 1979, 102, 133142.
Halpin, W. G. A study of the life histories and creative abilities of potential teachers (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Georgia, 1972). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1973, 33, 3382A.
Hamner, W. C. , & Foster, L. W. Are intrinsic and extrinsic rewards additive: A test of Decis
cognitive evaluation theory of task motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 1975, 14, 398415.
Harackiewicz, J. M. The effects of reward contingency and performance feedback on intrinsic
motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37, 13521363.
Harlow, H. F. Learning and satiation of response in intrinsically motivated complex puzzle
performance by monkeys. Journals of Comparative Physiological Psychology, 1950, 43,
289294.
Harlow, H., Harlow, M., & Meyer, D. Learning motivated by a manipulation drive. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 1950, 40, 228234.
Harris, M. B. , & Evans, R. C. Models and creativity. Psychological Reports, 1973, 33, 763769.
Harris, M. B. , & Evans, R. C. The effects of modeling and instructions on creative responses.
Journal of Psychology, 1974, 86, 123130.
Harter, S. Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a developmental model. Human
Development, 1978, 21, 3464.
Harter, S. A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the classroom:
Motivational and informational components. Developmental Psychology, 1981, 17, 300312.
Hattie, J. A. Conditions for administering creativity tests. Psychological Bulletin, 1977, 84,
12491260.
Hebb, D. O. Drives and the CNS. Psychological Review, 1955, 62, 243254.
Heist, P. (Ed.). The creative college student: An unmet challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
1968.
283 Heist, P., & Yonge, G. Manual for the omnibus personality inventoryForm F. New York: The
Psychological Corporation, 1968.
Helson, R. Childhood interest clusters related to creativity in women. Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 1965, 29, 352361.
Helson, R. Effects of sibling characteristics and parental values on creative interest and
achievement. Journal of Personality, 1968, 36, 589607.
Helson, R., & Crutchfield, R. Mathematicians: The creative researcher and the average Ph.D.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1970, 3, 250257.
Henchy, T., & Glass, D. C. Evaluation apprehension and the social facilitation of dominant and
subordinate responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 10, 446454.
Hennessey, B. Effects of reward and task label on childrens creativity in three domains.
Unpublished manuscript, Brandeis University, 1982.
Hershey, M., & Kearns, P. The effect of guided fantasy on the creative thinking and writing
ability of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 1979, 23, 7177.
Higgins, E. T. , & Chaires, W. M. Accessibility of interrelational constructs: Implications for
stimulus encoding and creativity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1980, 16, 348361.
Hilgard, E., & Bower, G. Theories of learning (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
1975.
Hocevar, D. A comparison of statistical infrequency and subjective judgment as criteria in the
measurement of originality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1979, 43, 297299. (a)
Hocevar, D. The unidimensional nature of creative thinking in fifth grade children. Child Study
Journal, 1979, 9, 273278. (b)
Hocevar, D. Ideational fluency as a confounding factor in the measurement of originality.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 1979, 71, 191196. (c)
Hocevar, D. Measurement of creativity: Review and critique. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 1981, 45, 450464.
Hogarth, R. Judgement and choice. Chichester: Wiley, 1980.
Holland, J. L. Test reviews. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1968, 15, 297298.
Holland, J. L. , U Astin, A. W. The prediction of academic, artistic, scientific, and special
achievement among undergraduates of superior scholastic aptitude. Evanston, Ill.: National
Merit Scholarship Corp., 1961.
Holton, G. On trying to understand scientific genius. American Scholar, 1972, 41, 95110.
Horwitz, R. A. Psychological effects of the open classroom. Review of Educational Research,
1979, 49, 7185.
Hughes, T., & McCullough, F. (Eds.). The journals of Sylvia Plath. New York: Dial, 1982.
Hunt, J. McV. Intrinsic motivation and its role in psycholological development. In D. Levine
(Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 13). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press,
1965.
Husband, R. W. Analysis of methods in human maze learning. Journal of Genetic Psychology,
1931, 39, 258277.
Hyman, R. Some experiments in creativity. New York: General Electric, 1960.
Hyman, R. Creativity and the prepared mind: The role of information and induced attitudes. In
C. W. Taylor (Ed.), Widening horizons in creativity. New York: Wiley, 1964.
284 Hyman, R. B. Creativity in open and traditional classrooms. Elementary School Journal,
1978, 78, 266274.
Institute for Behavioral Research in Creativity. Alpha Biographical Inventory. Greensboro, N.
Car.: Prediction Press, 1968.
Ironson, G. H. , & Davis, G. A. Faking high or low creativity scores on the adjective check list.
Journal of Creative Behavior, 1979, 13, 139145.
Jackson, P., & Messick, S. The person, the product and the response: Conceptual problems in
the assessment of creativity. Journal of Personality, 1965, 33, 309329.
Jaoui, H. Creativity and management. Paper presented at Creativity Week III, Center for
Creative Leadership, Greensboro, North Carolina, 1980.
Joesting, J. Relationship of two tests of creativity to freshman English grades, school activities,
and number of absences for black college students. Psychological Reports, 1975, 37, 6970.
Johnson, R., & Thomson, C. Incidental and intentional learning under three conditions of
motivation. American Journal of Psychology, 1962, 75, 284288.
Johnson, R. A. Differential effects of reward versus no-reward instructions on the creative
thinking of two economic levels of elementary school children. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 1974, 66, 530533.
Jordan, L. A. Use of canonical analysis in Cropleys A five-year longitudinal study of the validity
of creative tests. Developmental Psychology, 1975, 11, 13.
Kaltsounis, B., & Higdon, G. School conformity and its relationship to creativity. Psychological
Reports, 1977, 40, 715718.
Karniol, R., & Ross, M. The development of causal attributions in social perception. Journal of
Karniol, R., & Ross, M. The effects of performance relevant and performance irrelevant rewards
on childrens intrinsic motivation. Child Development, 1977, 48, 482487.
Kasperson, C. J. An analysis of the relationship between information sources and creativity in
scientists and engineers. Human Communication Research, 1978, 4, 113119. (a)
Kasperson, C. J. Psychology of the scientist: XXXVII. Scientific creativity: A relationship with
information channels. Psychological Reports, 1978, 42, 691694. (b)
Katona, G. Organizing and memorizing. New York: Columbia University Press, 1940.
Kazelskis, R. The convergent, divergent and factorial validity of the Torrance figural test of
creativity. Southern Journal of Educational Research, 1972, 6, 123129.
Kelley, H. Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on
Motivation, Vol. 15. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1967.
Kelley, H. The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 1973, 28, 107128.
Kimble, G. Hilgard and Marquis conditioning and learning (2nd ed.). New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, 1961.
Klein, P. S. Effects of open vs. structured teacher-student interaction on creativity of children
with different levels of anxiety. Psychology in the Schools, 1975, 12, 286288.
Koestler, A. The act of creation. New York: Dell, 1964.
Korb, R., & Frankiewicz, R. G. Strategy for a priori selection of judges in a product-centered
approach to assessment of creativity. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 1976, 42, 107115.
Kosslyn, S. M. Image and mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980.
Kruglanski, A. W. The endogenous-exogenous partition in attribution theory. Psychological
Review, 1975, 82, 387406.
285 Kruglanski, A. W. Endogenous attribution and intrinsic motivation. In M. Lepper & D.
Greene (Eds.), The hidden costs of reward. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1978.
Kruglanski, A. W. , Alon, S., & Lewis, T. Retrospective misattribution and task enjoyment.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1972, 8, 493501.
Kruglanski, A. W. , Friedman, I., & Zeevi, G. The effects of extrinsic incentive on some
qualitative aspects of task performance. Journal of Personality, 1971, 39, 606617.
Kruglanski, A. W. , Stein, C., & Riter, A. Contingencies of exogenous reward and task
performance: On the minimax principle in instrumental behavior. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 1977, 7, 141148.
Kuhn, T. S. The essential tension: Tradition and innovation in scientific research. In F. Barron &
C. W. Taylor (Eds.), Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development. New York: Wiley,
1963.
La Greca, A. M. Can children remember to be creative? An interview study of childrens thinking
processes. Child Development, 1980, 51, 572575.
Landreneau, E., & Halpin, G. The influence of modeling on childrens creative performance.
Journal of Educational Research, 1978, 71, 137139.
Langer, E. Rethinking the role of thought in social interaction. In J. Harvey, W. Ickes & R. Kidd
(Eds.), New directions in attribution research. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
1978.
Langer, E., & Imber, L. When practice makes imperfect: Debilitating effects of overlearning.
Lax, E. On being funny: Woody Allen and comedy. New York: Manor Books, 1975.
Lehman, H. Age and achievement. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1953.
Lepper, M., & Greene, D. Turning play into work: Effects of adult surveillance and extrinsic
rewards on childrens intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975,
31, 479486.
Lepper, M., & Greene, D. Overjustification research and beyond: Toward a means-end analysis
of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M. Lepper & D. Greene (Eds.), The hidden costs of
reward. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1978. (a)
Lepper, M., & Greene, D. (Eds.), The hidden costs of reward. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, 1978. (b)
Lepper, M., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. Undermining childrens intrinsic interest with extrinsic
rewards: A test of the overjustification hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1973, 28, 129137.
Lepper, M. R. , Sagotsky, G., Dafoe, J. L., & Greene, D. Consequences of superfluous social
constraints: Effects on young childrens social inferences and subsequent intrinsic interest.
Levine, J. Motivation in humor. New York: Atherton, 1969.
Lewis, H., & Mussen, P. Criteria for evaluation of childrens artistic creativity. Final Report.
University of California, Berkeley, February 1967.
Li, A. K. Effects of play on novel responses in kindergarten children. Alberta Journal of
Educational Research, 1978, 24, 3136.
Lichtenwalner, J. S. , & Maxwell, J. W. Te relationship of birth order and socio-economic status
to the creativity of preschool children. Child Development, 1969, 40, 12411247.
Lieberman, J. N. Playfulness and divergent thinking: An investigation of their relationship at the
kindergarten level. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1965, 107, 219224.
286 Lieberman, J. N. Playfulness: Its relationship to imagination and creativity. New York:
Academic, 1977.
Locurto, C. M. , & Walsh, J. F. Reinforcement and self-reinforcement: Their effects on
originality. American Journal of Psychology, 1976, 89, 281291.
Loveland, K., & Olley, J. The effect of external reward on interest and quality of task
performance in children of high and low intrinsic motivation. Child Development, 1979, 50,
12071210.
Lowell, A. Poetry and poets. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1930.
Luchins, A. Mechanization in problem solving: The effect of Einstellung. Psychological
Monographs, 1942, 54 (6, Whole No. 248).
Lynch, M. D. , & Edwards, T. M. The Miniscat: Its development and some evidence of its
validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1974, 34, 397405.
Mach, E. On the part played by accident in invention and discovery. Monist, 1896, 6, 161175.
MacKinnon, D. W. The nature and nurture of creative talent. American Psychologist, 1962, 17,
484495.
MacKinnon, D. W. Personality and the realization of creative potential. American Psychologist,
1965, 20, 273281.
MacKinnon, D. W. IPARs contribution to the conceptualization and study of creativity. In I.
Taylor & J. Getzels (Eds.), Perspectives in creativity. Chicago: Aldine, 1975.
Maddi, S. R. Motivational aspects of creativity. Journal of Personality, 1965, 33, 330347.
Maddi, S. R. , Charlens, A. M., Maddi, D. A., & Smith, A. J. Effects of monotony and novelty on
imaginative productions. Journal of Personality, 1962, 30, 513527.
Maddi, S. R. , Propst, B. S., & Feldinger, I. Three expressions of the need for variety. Journal of
Personality, 1965, 33, 8298.
Maddi, S. The strenuousness of the creative life. In I. Taylor & J. Getzels (Eds.), Perspectives in
creativity. Chicago: Aldine, 1975.
Malone, T. W. Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Science, 1981, 4,
333369.
Maloney, K. B. , & Hopkins, B. L. The modification of sentence structure and its relationship to
subjective judgments of creativity in writing. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1973, 6,
425433.
Manosevitz, M., Fling, S., & Prentice, N. M. Imaginary companions in young children:
Relationships with intelligence, creativity and waiting ability. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 1977, 18, 7378.
Mansfield, R. S. , Busse, T. V., & Krepelka, E. J. The effectiveness of creativity training. Review
of Educational Research, 1978, 48, 517536.
Manske, M. E. , & Davis, G. A. Effects of simple instructional biases upon performance in the
unusual uses test. Journal of General Psychology, 1968, 79, 2533.
Marjoribanks, K. The statification of socialisation processes: A further analysis. Educational
Studies, 1978, 4, 105110.
Matlin, M. W. , & Zajonc, R. B. Social facilitation of world associations. Journal of Personality
Mayer, M. A boy, a dog, and a frog. New York: Dial Press, 1967.
McClelland, D. C. The calculated risk: An aspect of scientific performance. In C. W. Taylor
(Ed.), The 1955 University of Utah Research Conference on the Identification of Creative
Scientific Talent. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1956.
287 McCormick, M., Sheehy, N., & Mitchell, J. Traditional versus open classroom structure and
examiner style: The effect on creativity in children. Child Study Journal, 1978, 8, 7582.
McDermid, C. D. Some correlates of creativity in engineering personnel. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 1965, 49, 1419.
McGraw, K. The detrimental effects of reward on performance: A literature review and a
prediction model. In M. Lepper & D. Greene (Eds.), The hidden costs of reward. Hillsdale, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1978.
McGraw, K., & McCullers, J. Evidence of a detrimental effect of extrinsic incentives on breaking
a mental set. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1979, 15, 285294.
McGuire, W. The yin and yang of progress in social psychology: Seven koan. Journal of
McKim, R. H. Experiences in visual thinking. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1972.
McNamara, H. J., & Fisch, R. I. Effect of high and low motivation on two aspects of attention.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1964, 19, 571578.
Mednick, M. T. , Mednick, S. A., & Jung, C. C. Continual association as a function of level of
creativity and type of verbal stimulus. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964, 69,
511515.
Mednick. S. The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 1962, 69,
220232.
Mednick, S. A. , & Mednick, M. T. Manual: Remote Associates Test. Form I. Boston: Houghton-
Mifflin, 1966.
Meichenbaum, D. Enhancing creativity by modifying what subjects say to themselves. American
Educational Research Journal, 1975, 12, 129145.
Milgram, R. M. , & Feingold, S. Concrete and verbal reinforcement in creative thinking of
disadvantaged children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1977, 45, 675678.
Milgram, R. M. , & Milgram, N. A. Group versus individual administration in the measurement of
creative thinking in gifted and nongifted children. Child Development, 1978, 49, 385388.
Milgram, R. M. , & Rabkin, L. Developmental test of Mednicks associative hierarchies of original
thinking. Developmental Psychology, 1980, 16, 157158.
Miller, B. C. , & Gerard, D. Family influences on the development of creativity in children: An
integrative review. Family Coordinator, 1979, 28, 295312.
Morgan, M. The overjustification effect: A developmental test of self-perception interpretations.
Mozart, W. A. A letter, 1789. In E. Holmes, The life of Mozart and his correspondence. London:
Chapman & Hall, 1878.
Mueller, L. K. Beneficial and detrimental modeling effects on creative response production.
Journal of Psychology, 1978, 98, 253260.
Murphy, R. T. Investigation of a creativity dimension. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1972,
33, 23282329.
Nash, W. R. The effects of warm-up activities on small group divergent problem-solving with
young children. Journal of Psychology, 1975, 89, 237241.
Newell, A., Shaw, J., & Simon, H. The processes of creative thinking. In H. Gruber, G. Terrell &
M. Wertheimer (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to creative thinking. New York: Atherton
Press, 1962.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972.
288 Nicholls, J. G. Creativity in the person who will never produce anything original and useful:
The concept of creativity as a normally distributed trait. American Psychologist, 1972, 27,
717727.
Nunnally, J. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
Oates, J. C. Stories that define me. New York Times Book Review, July 11, 1982, pp. 1; 1516.
Okoh, N. Bilingualism and divergent thinking among Nigerian and Welsh school children.
Journal of Social Psychology, 1980, 110, 163170.
Osborn, A. F. Applied imagination. New York: Scribners. 1953.
Osborn, A. Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative thinking. New York:
Scribners, 1963.
Owens, W. A. , Schumacher, C., & Clark, J. The measurement of creativity in machine design.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 1957, 41, 297302.
Parish, T. S. , & Eads, G. M. College students perceptions of parental
restrictiveness/permissiveness and students scores on a brief measure of creativity.
Parnes, S. Creative behavior guidebook. New York: Scribners, 1967.
Parnes, S. J. A program for balanced growth. Journal of Creative Behavior, 1975, 9, 2329.
Parnes, S. J. , & Meadow, A. Development of individual creative talent. In C. W. Taylor & F.
Barron (Eds.), Scientific creativity. New York: Wiley, 1963.
Pessin, J. The comparative effects of social and mechanical stimulation on memorizing.
American Journal of Psychology, 1933, 45, 263270.
Piaget, J. Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton, 1951.
Pittman, T. S. , Cooper, E. E., & Smith, T. W. Attribution of causality and the overjustification
effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1977, 6, 228233.
Pittman, T. S. , Emery, J., & Boggiano, A. K. Instrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations:
Reward-induced changes in preference for complexity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1982, 42, 789797.
Poincare, H. The foundations of science. New York: Science Press, 1924.
Pollert, L. H. , Feldhusen, J. F., Van Mondfrans, A. P., & Treffinger, D. J. Role of memory in
divergent thinking. Psychological Reports, 1969, 25, 151156.
Poole, M. E. , Williams, A. J., & Lett, W. R. Inner-centeredness of highly creative adolescents.
Porter, L., & Lawler, E. E. Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, Ill.: Free Press,
1968.
Prentky, R. A. Creativity and psychopathology. New York: Praeger, 1980.
Preston, J. H. A conversation with Gertrude Stein. In B. Ghiselin (Ed.), The creative process.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1952.
Quinn, E. Creativity and cognitive complexity. Social Behavior and Personality, 1980, 8,
213215.
Raina, M. K. A study into the effect of competition on creativity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 1968, 12,
217220.
Ramey, C. T. , & Piper, V. Creativity in open and traditional classrooms. Child Development,
1974, 45, 557560.
Reiss, S., & Sushinsky, L. W. Overjustification, competing responses, and the acquisition of
intrinsic interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 11161125.
Renzulli, J. S. , Owen, S. V., & Callahan, C. M. Fluency, flexibility, and originality as a function
of group size. Journal of Creative Behavior, 1974, 8, 107113.
289 Rimm, S. GIFT: An instrument for the identification and measurement of creativity.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 1976, 37, (5-A) 2804.
Rimm, S., & Davis G. A. GIFT: An instrument for the identification of creativity. Journal of
Creative Behavior, 1976, 10, 178182.
Rimm, S., U Davis, G. A. Five years of international research with GIFT: An instrument for the
identification of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 1980, 14, 3546.
Rivlin, L. G. Creativity and the self-attitudes and sociability of high school students. Journal of
Roe, A. A psychologist examines sixty-four eminent scientists. Scientific American, 1952, 187,
2125.
Roe, A. A psychological study of eminent psychologists and anthropologists and a comparison
with biological and physical scientists. Psychological Monographs, 1953, 67 (2, Whole No. 352).
Rogers, C. Towards a theory of creativity. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 1954, 11,
249260.
Rosenthal, R., Baratz, S., Hall, C. M. Teacher behavior, teacher expectations, and gains in
pupils rated creativity. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1974, 124, 115121.
Ross, L., Lepper, M., & Hubbard, M. Perseverance in self-perception and social perception:
Biased attributional processes in the debriefing paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1975, 32, 880892.
Ross, M. Salience of reward and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1975, 32, 245254.
Ross, M. The self-perception of intrinsic motivation. In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd
(Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977.
Roweton, W. E. , et al. Indices of classroom creativity. Child Study Journal, 1975, 5, 151161.
Ryan, B. A. , & Winston, A. S. Dimensions of creativity in childrens drawings: A social-validation
study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1978, 70, 651656.
Salancik, G. Retrospective attribution of past behavior and commitment to future behavior.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Illinois, 1975.
Samuelson, P. A. Economics in a golden age: A personal memoir. In G. Holton (Ed.), The
twentieth century sciences: Studies in the biography of ideas. New York: Norton, 1972.
Sanders, S. J. , Tedford, W. H., & Hardy, B. W. Effects of musical stimuli on creativity.
Psychological Record, 1977, 27, 463471.
Santrock, J. W. Relation of type and onset of father absence to cognitive development. Child
Development, 1972, 43, 455469.
Schaefer, C. E. The prediction of creative achievement from a biographical inventory.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1969, 29, 431437. (a)
Schaefer, C. E. Imaginary companions and creative adolescents. Developmental Psychology,
1969, 1, 747749. (b)
Schank, R., & Abelson, R. Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum,
1977.
Schubert, D. Intelligence as necessary but not sufficient for creativity. Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 1973, 122, 4547.
Schubert, D. S. Increase of creativity by prior response to a problem. Journal of General
Psychology, 1977, 96, 323324.
Schubert, D. S. , Wagner, M. E., & Schubert, H. J. Family constellation and creativity: Firstborn
predominance among classical music composers. Journal of Psychology, 1977, 95, 147149.
290 Seligman, C., Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. Effects of salience of extrinsic rewards on liking
and loving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980, 38, 453460.
Sexton, L. G. , & Ames, L. Anne Sexton: A self-portrait in letters. Boston: Houghton Mifflin,
1977.
Shapira, Z. Expectancy determinants of intrinsically motivated behavior. Journal of Personality
Siegelman, M. Parent behavior correlates of personality traits related to creativity in sons and
daughters. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1973, 40, 4347.
Silberman, C. E. Crisis in the classroom: The remaking of American education. New York:
Random House, 1970.
Simon, H. Scientific discovery and the psychology of problem solving. In Mind and cosmos:
Essays in contemporary science and philosophy. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press,
1966.
Simon, H. Understanding creativity. In J. C. Gowan, G. D. Demos, & E. P. Torrance (Eds.),
Creativity: Its educational implications. New York: Wiley, 1967. (a)
Simon, H. Motivational and emotional controls of cognition. Psychological Review, 1967, 74,
2939. (b)
Simon, H. Information-processing theory of human problem solving. In W. K. Estes (Ed.),
Handbook of learning and cognitive processes, Vol. 5: Human information processing. Hillsdale,
N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1978.
Simonton, D. K. Sociocultural context of individual creativity: A transhistorical time-series
analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 11191133. (a)
Simonton, D. K. Interdisciplinary creativity over historical time: A correlational analysis of
generational fluctuations. Social Behavior and Personality, 1975, 3, 181188. (b)
Simonton, D. K. Age and literary creativity: A cross-cultural and transhistorical survey. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1975, 6, 259277. (c)
Simonton, D. K. Biographical determinants of achieved eminence: A multivariate approach to
the Cox data. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 33, 218226. (a)
Simonton, D. K. Philosophical eminence, beliefs, and Zeitgeist: An individual-generational
analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 34, 630640. (b)
Simonton, D. K. Creative productivity, age, and stress: A biographical time-series analysis of 10
classical composers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1977, 35, 791804. (a)
Simonton, D. K. Eminence, creativity, and geographical marginality: A recursive structural
equation model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1977, 35, 805816. (b)
Simonton, D. K. Techno-scientific activity and war: A yearly time-series analysis. Unpublished
manuscript, 1977. (c)
Simonton, D. K. The eminent genius in history: The critical role of creative development. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 1978, 22, 187195.
Simonton, D. K. Multiple discovery and invention: Zeitgeist, genius, or chance. Journal of
Simonton, D. K. Thematic fame and melodic originality in classical music: A multivariate
computer-content analysis. Journal of Personality, 1980, 48, 206219. (a)
Simonton, D. K. Thematic fame, melodic originality, and musical Zeitgeist: A biographical and
transhistorical content analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980, 38,
972983. (b)
Simpson, E. Eliot and friends. The New York Times Book Review, January 24, 1982, pp. 11;
27.
291 Singer, J.L. Imagination and waiting ability in young children. Journal of Personality 1961,
29, 396413.
Singer, J. L. The childs world of make-believe. New York: Academic Press, 1973.
Singer, J. L. , & Schonbar, R. A. Correlates of daydreaming: A dimension of self-awareness.
Journal of Consulting Psychology 1961, 25, 16.
Skinner, B. F. The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, 1938.
Smith, M. C. Childrens use of the multiple sufficient cause schema in social perception. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 737747.
Smith, P. K. , & Dutton, S. Play and training in direct and innovative problem solving. Child
Development, 1979, 50, 830836.
Sobel, R. S. , & Rothenberg, A. Artistic creation as stimulated by superimposed versus
separated visual images. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980, 39, 953961.
Souriau, P. Theories de linvention. Paris: Hachette, 1881.
Spearman, C. The abilities of man. New York: Macmillan, 1927.
Speller, K. G. , & Schumacher, G. M. Age and set in creative test performance. Psychological
Reports, 1975, 36, 447450.
Spence, K. Behavior theory and conditioning. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1956.
Spender, S. The making of a poem. In B. Ghiselin (Ed.), The creative process. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1952.
Staffieri, J. R. Birth order and creativity. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1970, 26, 6566.
Staw, B. M. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press, 1976.
Stein, M. I. Creativity and culture. In R. L. Mooney & T. A. Razik (Eds.), Explorations in
creativity. New York: Harper, 1967.
Stein, M. I. Creativity. In E. F. Borgatta & W. W. Lambert (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory
and research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1968.
Stein, M. I. Stimulating Creativity (Vols. 1 and 2). New York: Academic Press, 1974 and 1975.
Sternberg, R. J. Component processes in analogical reasoning. Psychological Review, 1977,
84, 353378. (a)
Sternberg, R. J. Intelligence, information processing, and analogical reasoning: The
componential analysis of human abilities. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977. (b)
Sternberg, R. J. Isolating the components of intelligence. Intelligence, 1978, 2, 117128.
Sternberg, R. J. The nature of mental abilities. American Psychologist, 1979, 34, 214230.
Stone, B. G. Relationship between creativity and classroom behavior. Psychology in the
Schools, 1980, 17, 106108.
Street, W. R. Brainstorming by individuals, coacting and interacting groups. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 1974, 59, 433436.
Stubbs, M. L. , & Amabile, T. M. Explaining the relationship between fantasy and creativity.
Paper presented at the Third Annual Conference on the Fantasy and Imaging Process, New
York, November, 1979.
Stubbs, M. L. Methodological improvements in exploring the relationship between fantasy and
creativity. Unpublished manuscript, Brandeis University, 1981.
Sullivan, J. Open-traditionalwhat is the difference? Elementary School Journal, 1974, 74,
493500.
292 Sutton-Smith, B. Play: The mediation of novelty. Address presented to the Scientific
Congress, fur die Spiele der XX Olympiade, Munich, 1972.
Taylor, C., & Barron, F. Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development. New York: Wiley,
1963.
Taylor, D. W. Toward an information processing theory of motivation. In M. R. Jones (Ed.),
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: 1960. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1960.
Taylor, D. W. Variables related to creativity and productivity among men in two research
laboratories. In C. W. Taylor & F. Barron (Eds.), Scientific creativity: Its recognition and
development. New York: Wiley, 1963.
Taylor, W., & Ellison, R. Predicting creative performances from multiple measures. In C. W.
Taylor (Ed.), Widening horizons in creativity. New York: Wiley, 1964.
Tchaikovsky, P. A letter, 1878. In R. Newmarch, Life and letters of Peter Ilich Tchaikovsky.
London: John Lane, 1906.
Thistlethwaite, D. L. College environments and the development of talent. Science, 1959, 130,
7176. (a)
Thistlethwaite, D. L. College press and student achievement. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 1959, 50, 183191. (b)
Thomas, N., & Berk, L. Effects of school environments on the development of young childrens
creativity. Child Development, 1981, 52, 11531162.
Thurstone, L., & Chave, E. The measurement of attitude. Chicago: University of Illinois Press,
1929.
Torrance, E. P. Priming creative thinking in the primary grades. Elementary School Journal,
1961, 62, 139145.
Torrance, E. P. Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1962. Torrance, E.
P. Role of evaluation in creative thinking. Cooperative Research Project No. 725, University of
Minnesota, 1964.
Torrance, E. P. Rewarding creative behavior: Experiments in classroom creativity. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1965.
Torrance, E. P. The Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual. Lexington,
Mass.: Personnel Press, 1966.
Torrance, E. P. Understanding the fourth grade slump in creative thinking: Final report. Athens:
Georgia University, December 1967.
Torrance, E. P. A longitudinal examination of the fourth grade slump in creativity. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 1968, 12, 195199.
Torrance, E. P. Predictive validity of the Torrance tests of creative thinking. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 1972, 6, 236252. (a)
Torrance, E. P. Career patterns and peak creative achievements of creative high school
students twelve years later. Gifted Child Quarterly, 1972, 16, 7588. (b)
Torrance, E. P. Interscholastic brainstorming and creative problem solving competition for the
creatively gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 1974, 18, 37.
Torrance, E. P. et al. Rewarding creative thinking. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1960.
Torrance, E. P. , Bruch, C. B., & Torrance, J. P. Interscholastic futuristic creative problem
solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 1976, 10, 117125.
Torrance, E. P. , & Khatena, J. What kind of person are you? The Gifted Child Quarterly, 1970,
14, 7175.
293 Travis, L. E. The effect of a small audience upon eye-hand coordination. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1925, 20, 142146.
Treadwell, Y. Humor and creativity. Psychological Reports, 1970, 26, 5558.
Triplett, N. The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition. American Journal of
Psychology, 1898, 9, 507533.
Trowbridge, N., & Charles, D. C. Creativity in art students. Journal of Genetic Psychology,
1966, 109, 281289.
van Mondfrans, A. P., Feldhusen, J. F., Treffinger, D. J., & Ferris, D. R. The effects of
instructions and response time on divergent thinking test scores. Psychology in the Schools,
1971, 8, 6571.
Vroom, V. Motivation and work. New York: Wiley, 1964.
Walberg, H. J. Varieties of adolescent creativity and the high school environment. Exceptional
Children, 1971, 38, 111116.
Wallach, M. A. Creativity. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichaels Manual of child psychology (Vol.
1). New York: Wiley, 1970.
Wallach, M. A. The creativity-intelligence distinction. New York: General Learning Press, 1971.
Wallach, M., & Kogan, N. Modes of thinking in young children. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston, 1965.
Wallas, G. The art of thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1926.
Wallen, N. E. , & Stevenson, G. M. Stability and correlates of judged creativity in fifth grade
writings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1960, 51, 273276.
Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., & Rottman, L. Importance of physical attractiveness in
dating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 508516.
Ward, W. C. Creativity and environmental cues in nursery school children. Developmental
Psychology, 1969, 1, 543547.
Ward, W. C. Creativity (?) in young children. Journal of Creative Behavior, 1974, 8, 101106.
Ward, W. C. , & Barcher, P. R. Reading achievement and creativity as related to open
classroom experience. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1975, 67, 683691.
Ward, W. C. , Kogan, N., & Pankove, E. Incentive effects in childrens creativity. Child
Development, 1972, 43, 669676.
Watson, J. D. The double helix. New York: Atheneum, 1968.
Watson, J. Behaviorism. London: K. Paul, 1928.
Weisberg, P. S. , & Springer, K. J. Environmental factors in creative function. Archives of
General Psychiatry, 1961, 5, 554564.
Wertheimer, M. Productive thinking. New York: Harper & Row, 1945.
Wertheimer, M. Productive thinking. New York: Harper & Row, 1959.
White, K., & Owen, D. Locus of evaluation for classroom work and the development of creative
potential. Psychology in the Schools, 1970, 7, 292295.
White, R. Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 1959,
66, 297323.
Whiting, C. Creative thinking. New York: Reinhold, 1958.
Wickelgren, W. A. Cognitive psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1979.
Wilner, M. S. The differential effects of assessment context on factors of divergent thinking
abilities and creativity: IQ relationship in sixth-grade boys. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Houston, 1974.
Winer, B. Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.
294 Wolfe, T. The story of a novel. New York: Scribners, 1936.
Wood, W. Retrieval of attitude-relevant information from memory: Effects on susceptibility to
persuation and on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1982, 42,
798810.
Zajonc, R. B. Social facilitation. Science, 1965, 149, 269274.
Zajonc, R. B. , Heingarner, A., & Herman, E. M. Social enhancement and impairment of
performance in the cockroach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 13, 8392.
Zajonc, R. B. , & Sales, S. M. Social facilitation of dominant and subordinate responses. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 1966, 2, 160168.
Zajonc, R. B. , Wolosin, R. J., Wolosin, M. A., Loh, W. D. Social facilitation and imitation in
group risk-taking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1970, 6, 2646.
Zervos, C. Conversation with Picasso. In B. Ghiselin (Ed.), The creative process. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1952.
Zimmerman, B. J. , & Dialessi, F. Modeling influences on childrens creative behavior, Journal of
Ziv, A. Facilitating effects of humor on creativity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1976, 68,
318322.
Zuckerman, H. Nobel laureates in science: Patterns of productivity, collaboration, and
authorship. American Sociological Review, 1967, 32, 391403.
Zuckerman, H. Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the U.S. New York: The Free Press, 1977.
Zuckerman, M., Porac, J., Lathin, D., Smith, R., & Deci, E. L. On the importance of self-
determination for intrinsically motivated behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
1978, 4, 443446.
Abbey, A., and J. W. Dickson. 1983. R & D work climate and innovation in semiconductors.
Academy of Management Journal 26:362368.
Amabile, T. M. 1982. Childrens artistic creativity: Detrimental effects of competition in a field
setting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 8:573578.
Amabile, T. M. 1983a. The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Amabile, T. M. 1983b. Social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45:357377.
Amabile, T. M. 1985. Motivation and creativity: Effects of motivational orientation on creative
writing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48:393399.
Amabile, T. M. 1987a. The motivation to be creative. In Frontiers in creativity research: Beyond
the basics, edited by S. Isaksen. Buffalo, N.Y.: Bearly Limited.
Amabile, T. M. 1987b. The work environment inventory, version 3. Greensboro, N.C.: Center for
Creative Leadership.
Amabile, T. M. 1988a. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Vol. 10 of
Research in organizational behavior, edited by B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings. Greenwich,
Conn.: JAI Press, 123167.
Amabile, T. M. 1988b. From individual creativity to organizational innovation. In Innovation: A
crossdisciplinary perspective, edited by K. Gronhaug and G. Kaufmann. Oslo: Norwegian
University Press.
Amabile, T. M. 1989. Growing up creative. Buffalo, N.Y.: Creative Education Foundation.
Amabile, T. M. 1990. The work environment inventory, version 4. Greensboro, N.C.: Center for
Amabile, T. M. 1993. Motivational synergy: Toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review 3:185201.
Amabile, T. M. 1995. KEYS: Assessing the climate for creativity. Greensboro, N.C.: Center for
Amabile, T. M. , R. M. Burnside, and S. S. Gryskiewicz. 1995. Users guide for KEYS: Assessing
the climate for creativity Greensboro, N.C.: Center for Creative Leadership.
Amabile, T. M. , and R. Conti. 1995. What downsizing does to creativity. Issues and
Observations 15:16. Greensboro, N.C.: Center for Creative Leadership.
Amabile, T. M. , R. Conti, H. Coon, J. Lazenby, and M. Herron. Assessing the work environment
for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, in press.
Amabile, T. M. , and N. Gryskiewicz. 1989. The creative environment scales: The work
environment inventory. Creativity Research Journal 2:231254.
Amabile, T. M. , and S. S. Gryskiewicz. 1987. Creativity in the R&D laboratory. Technical report
no. 30. Greensboro, N.C.: Center for Creative Leadership.
296 Amabile, T. M., B. A. Hennessey, and B. S. Grossman. 1986. Social influences on
creativity: The effects of contracted-for reward. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
50:1423.
Amabile, T. M. , K. G. Hill, B. A. Hennessey, and E. Tighe. 1994. The work preference
inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 66:950967.
Amabile, T. M. , E. D. Phillips, and M. A. Collins. 1994. Creativity by contract: Social influences
on the creativity of professional artists. Unpublished manuscript, Brandeis University.
Amabile, T. M. , and E. Tighe. 1993. Questions of creativity. In Creativity: The Reality Club 4,
edited by J. Brockman. New York: Touchstone, 727.
Baer, J. 1994. Divergent thinking is not a general trait: A multidomain training experiment.
Creativity Research Journal 7:3546.
Bartis, S., K. Szymanski, and S. G. Harkins. 1988. Evaluation and performance: A two-edge
knife. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 14:242251.
Bartko, J. J. 1966. The intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability.
Psychological Reports 19:311.
Berretta, S., and G. Privette. 1990. Influence of play on creative thinking. Perceptual and Motor
Skills 71:659666.
Besemer, S. P. , and K. OQuin. 1986. Analyzing creative products: Refinement and test of a
judging instrument. Journal of Creative Behavior 20:115126.
Brunke, M., and M. Gilbert. 1992. Alcohol and creative writing. Psychological Reports
71:651658.
Burns, M. 1988. Music as a tool for enhancing creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior 22:6269.
Carney, S. 1986. Intrinsic motivation in successful artists from early adulthood to middle age.
Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago.
Cheek, J. M. , and S. Stahl. 1986. Shyness and verbal creativity. Journal of Research in
Personality 20:5161.
Collins, M. A. 1992. Contextual influences on the effect of restricted choice on problem-solving
creativity. Unpublished manuscript, Brandeis University.
Collins, M. A. , and T. M. Amabile. 1992. Intrinsic motivation and artistic creativity: The effects of
naturally-occurring interest, affect, and involvement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston, Mass., April.
Comadena, M. 1984. Brainstorming groups: Ambiguity tolerance, communication apprehension,
task attraction, and individual productivity. Small Group Behavior 15:251264.
Conti, R. 1992. A potential danger in the use of productivity goals. Unpublished manuscript,
Brandeis University.
Conti, R., and T. M. Amabile. 1995. Problem solving among computer science students: The
effects of skill, evaluation expectation and personality on solution quality. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston, Mass.
Conti, R., T. M. Amabile, and S. Pollak. 1995. The positive impact of creative activity: Effects of
creative task engagement and motivational focus on college students learning. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin 21:11071116.
Conti, R., M. A. Collins, and M. Picariello. 1995. Differential effects of competition on the artistic
creativity of girls and boys. Unpublished manuscript, Brandeis University.
297 Conti, R., H. Coon, and T. M. Amabile. In press. Some support for the componential model
of creativity: Secondary analyses of three studies. Creativity Research Journal.
Cropley, A. 1990. Creativity and mental health in everyday life. Creativity Research Journal
3:167178.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1988. Society, culture, and person: a systems view of creativity. Chapter
13 in The nature of creativity, edited by R. J. Sternberg. Cambridge. Mass.: Cambridge
University Press, 325339.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., and R. Robinson. 1986. Culture, time, and the development of talent. In
Conceptions of giftedness, edited by R. J. Sternberg and J. E. Davidson. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 264284.
Dacey, J. S. 1989. Discriminating characteristics of the families of highly creative adolescents.
Journal of Creative Behavior 23:263271.
Deci, E. L. , and R. M. Ryan. 1985. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum.
Delbecq, A. L. , and P. K. Mills. 1985. Managerial practices that enhance innovation.
Organizational Dynamics 14:2434.
Eisenberger, R., and M. Selbst. 1994. Does reward increase or decrease creativity? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 66:11161127.
Ekvall, G., J. Arvonen, and I. Waldenstrom-Lindblad. 1983. Creative organizational climate:
Construction and validation of a measuring instrument. Report 2. The Swedish Council for
Management and Organizational Behaviour.
Fabes, R. A. , J. D. Moran, and J. C. McCullers. 1981. The hidden costs of reward and WAIS
subscale performance. American Journal of Psychology 94:387398.
Feldhusen, J., and P. Clinkenbeard. 1986. Creativity instructional materials: A review of
research. Journal of Creative Behavior 20:153182.
Feldman, D.H., M. Csikszentmihalyi, and H. Gardner. 1994. Changing the world: A framework
for the study of creativity. Westford, Conn.: Praeger.
Forgays, D., and D. Forgays. 1992. Creativity enhancement through flotation isolation. Journal
of Environmental Psychology 12:329335.
Gardner, H. 1988b. Creativity: An interdisciplinary perspective. Creativity Research Journal
1:826.
Gardner, K. G. , and J. D. Moran. 1990. Family adaptability, cohesion, and creativity. Creativity
Research Journal 3:281286.
Gondola, J. 1986. The enhancement of creativity through long and short term exercise
programs. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 1:7782.
Greenberg, E. 1992. Creativity, autonomy, and evaluation of creative work: Artistic workers in
organizations. Journal of Creative Behavior 26:7580.
Greer, M., and E. Levine. 1991. Enhancing creative performance in college students. Journal of
Creative Behavior 25:250255.
Gruber, H. E. 1988. The evolving systems approach to creative work. Creativity Research
Journal 1:2759.
Gruber, H. E. , and S. N. Davis. 1988. Inching our way up Mount Olympus: The evolving-
systems approach to creative thinking. In The nature of creativity, edited by R. J. Sternberg.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 386426.
Gryskiewicz, S. S. , and D. A. Hills, eds. 1992. Readings in innovation. Greensboro, N.C.:
Center for Creative Leadership.
298 Harackiewicz, J.M., S. Abrahams, and R. Wageman. 1991. Performance evaluation and
intrinsic motivation: The effects of evaluative focus, rewards and achievement orientation.
Harrington, D. M. 1990. The ecology of human creativity: A psychological perspective. In
Theories of creativity, edited by M. A. Runco and R. S. Albert. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage
Publications, 143169.
Harrington, D. M. , J. H. Block, and J. Block. 1987. Testing aspects of Carl Rogers theory of
creative environments: Child rearing antecedents of creative potential in young adolescents.
Heinzen, T. E. , C. Mills, and P. Cameron. 1993. Scientific innovation potential. Creativity
Hennessey, B. A. 1989. The effect of extrinsic constraints on childrens creativity while using a
computer. Creativity Research Journal 2:151168.
Hennessey, B. A. 1994. The consensual assessment technique: An examination of the
relationship between ratings of product and process creativity. Creativity Research Journal
7:193208.
Hennessey, B. A. , and T. M. Amabile. 1988. Story-telling: A method for assessing childrens
creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior 22:235246.
Hennessey, B. A. , T. M. Amabile, and M. Martinage. 1989. Immunizing children against the
negative effects of reward. Contemporary Educational Psychology 14:212227.
Hennessey, B. A. , and S. Zbikowski. 1993. Immunizing children against the negative effects of
reward: A further examination of intrinsic motivation training techniques. Creativity Research
Journal 6:297308.
Hill, K. 1991. An ecological approach to creativity and motivation: Trait and environment
influences in the college classroom. Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University.
Hill, K. G. , T. M. Amabile, H. M. Coon, and D. Whitney. 1994. Testing the componential model
of creativity. Unpublished manuscript, Brandeis University.
Hocevar, D., and P. Bachelor. 1989. A taxonomy and critique of measurements used in the
study of creativity. In Handbook of creativity, edited by J. Glover, R. Ronning, and C. Reynolds.
New York: Plenum Press, 5375.
Isaksen, S. G. , and K. B. Dorval. 1993. Toward an improved understanding of creativity within
people: The level-style distinction. In Understanding and recognizing creativity: The emergence
of a discipline, edited by S. G. Isaksen, M. C. Murdock, R. L. Firestien, and D. I. Treffinger.
Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Isaksen, S. G. , K. B. Dorval, R. B. Noller, and R. L. Firestien. 1993. The dynamic nature of
creative problem solving. In Discovering creativity, edited by S. C. Gryskiewicz. Greensboro,
N.C.: Center for Creative Leadership, 155162.
Isaksen, S. G. , M. C. Murdock, R. L. Firestien, D. J. Treffinger, eds. 1993. Understanding and
recognizing creativity: The emergence of a discipline. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing
Corporation.
Isen, A. M. 1987. Positive affect, cognitive processes, and social behavior. Vol. 20 of Advances
in experimental social psychology, edited by L. Berkowitz. New York: Academic Press, 203253.
Isen, A. M. , and K. A. Daubman. 1984. The influence of affect on categorization. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 47:12061217.
Isen, A. M. , M. S. Johnson, E. Mertz, and G. F. Robinson. 1985. The influence of positive affect
on the unusualness of word associations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
48:14131426.
299 Jussim, L., S. Soffin, R. Brown, J. Ley, and K. Kohlhepp. 1992. Understanding reactions to
feedback by integrating ideas from symbolic interactionism and cognitive evaluation theory.
King, S. 1990. Introduction to Four past midnight. New York: Viking Penguin.
Kirton, M. J. 1976. Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied
Psychology 61:622629.
Koestner, R., R. Ryan, F. Bernieri, and K. Holt. 1984. Setting limits on childrens behavior: The
differential effects of controlling vs. informational styles on intrinsic motivation and creativity.
Journal of Personality 52:233248.
Lynn, S. J. , and J. W. Rhue. 1986. The fantasy-prone person: Hypnosis, imagination, and
creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51:404408.
Lynn, S. J. , and J. W. Rhue. 1988. Fantasy proneness: Hypnosis, developmental antecedents,
and psychopathology. American Psychologist 43:3544.
McFadden, M., and E. Demetriou. 1993. The role of immediate work environment factors in the
turnover process: A systemic intervention. Applied Psychology: An International Review
42:97115.
McKeachie, W. J. 1983. National symposium on the applications of psychology to the teaching
and learning of music. Session 3: Motivation and creativity. American Psychologist 38:855857.
Meador, K. S. 1992. Emerging rainbows: A review of the literature on creativity in preschoolers.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted 15:163181.
Michel, M., and S. Z. Dudek. 1991. Mother-child relationships and creativity. Creativity
Mooney, R. L. 1963. A conceptual model for integrating four approaches to the identification of
creative talent. In Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development. Edited by C. W. Taylor
and F. Barron. New York: Wiley, 331340.
Necka, E. 1984. The effectiveness of synectics and brainstorming as conditioned by
socioemotional climate and type of task. Polish Psychological Bulletin 15:4150.
OQuin, K., and S. P. Besemer. 1989. The development, reliability, and validity of the revised
creative product semantic scale. Creativity Research Journal 2:268278.
Pellegrini, A. D. 198485. The effects of exploration and play on young childrens associative
fluency. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality 4:2940.
Phillips, E. 1992. Assessing the creativity of expert artworks: An extension of the Consensual
Assessment Technique. Unpublished manuscript, Brandeis University.
Phillips, E. 1993. An examination of childrens motivation to draw: A developmental approach.
Unpublished manuscript, Brandeis University.
Picariello, M. L. 1992. The effects of motivational orientation on childrens creativity. Paper
presented at the Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston, Mass., April.
Picariello, M. L. 1994. Childrens perceptions of autonomy in the classroom: Implications for
intrinsic motivation, learning, and creativity. Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University..
Pollak, S. 1992. The effects of motivational orientation and constraint on the creativity of the
artist. Unpublished manuscript, Brandeis University.
Radio-Gaynor, J. R., and M. A. Runco. 1992. Family size, birth-order, age-interval, and the
creativity of children. Journal of Creative Behavior 26: 108118.
Raikov, V. 1992. Hypnosis as an active creative act and post-hypnotic development of
enhanced creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior 26:148155.
300 Robinson, S. E., S. L. Roth, and L. L. Brown. 1993. Morale and job satisfaction among
nurses: What can hospitals do? Journal of Applied Social Psychology 23:244251.
Rose, L., and H. Lin. 1984. A meta-analysis of long-term creativity training programs. Journal of
Creative Behavior 18:1122.
Runco, M. A. , and M. D. Bahleda. 1987. Birth order and divergent thinking. Journal of Genetic
Runco, M. A. , and W. R. Smith. 1992. Interpersonal and intrapersonal evaluations of creative
ideas. Personality and Individual Differences 13:295302.
Ruscio, J. 1994. Exploratory analysis of the creative process in problem-solving. Unpublished
manuscript, Brandeis University.
Ruscio, J., D. Whitney, and T. M. Amabile. 1995. How do motivation and task behaviors affect
creativity? An investigation in three domains. Unpublished manuscript, Brandeis University.
Russell, R. D. , and C. J. Russell. 1992. An examination of the effects of organizational norms,
organizational structure, and environmental uncertainty on entrepreneurial strategy. Journal of
Management 18:839856.
Ryan, R. M. , and W. S. Grolnick. 1986. Origins and pawns in the classroom: Self-report and
projective assessments of individual differences in childrens perceptions. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 50:550558.
Salvolaninen, T. 1990. Expanding human-computer interaction by computer aided creativity.
Interacting with Computers 2:161174.
Shrout, P. E. , and J. L. Fleiss. 1979. Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Psychological Bulletin 86:420428.
Siegel, S. M. , and W. F. Kaemmerer. 1978. Measuring the perceived support for innovation in
organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology 63:553562.
Simonton, D. K. 1984. Genius, creativity, and leadership. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press.
Simonton, D. K. 1988. Age and outstanding achievement: What do we know after a century of
research? Psychological Bulletin 104:251267.
Simonton, D. K. 1989a. The chance-configuration theory of scientific creativity. In The
psychology of science: Contributions to metascience, edited by B. Gholson, A. C. Houts, R. A.
Niemeyer, and W. R. Shadish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 170213.
Simonton, D. K. 1989b. The swan-song phenomenon: Last-works effects for 172 classical
composers. Psychology and Aging 4:4247.
Simonton, D. K. 1990. Creativity in the later years: Optimistic prospects for achievement.
Gerontologist 30:626631.
Simonton, D. K. 1991. Creative productivity through the adult years. Generations 15:1316.
Simonton, D. K. 1992. The social context of career success and course for 2,026 scientists and
inventors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 18:452463.
Stein, M. I. 1953. Creativity and Culture. Journal of Psychology 36:311322.
Sternberg, R. J. , ed. 1988. The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives.
Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. , and T. I. Lubart. 1991. An investment theory of creativity and its development.
Human Development 34:131.
Sternberg, R. J. , and T. I. Lubart. Creative giftedness: A multivariate investment approach.
Gifted Child Quarterly 37:715.
301 Suedfeld, P., J. Metcalfe, and S. Bluck. 1987. Enhancement of scientific creativity by
flotation REST (restricted environmental stimulation technique). Journal of Environmental
Szymanski, K., and S. G. Harkins. 1992. Self-evaluation and creativity. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin 18:259265.
Thornburg, T. 1991. Group size and member diversity influences on creative performance.
Journal of Creative Behavior 25:324333.
Tighe, E. M. 1992. The motivational influences of mood on creativity. Ph.D. diss., Brandeis
University.
Weber, R. J. , and D. N. Perkins. 1989. How to invent artifacts and ideas. New Ideas in
Psychology 7:4972.
Whitney, D., J. Ruscio, T. Amabile, and M. Castle. 1995. Effects of planning on creativity. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston, Mass.
Witt, L. A. , and M. N. Beorkrem. 1989. Climate for creative productivity as a predictor of
research usefulness and organizational effectiveness in an R&D organization. Creativity
Woodman, R. W. , J. E. Sawyer, and R. W. Griffin. 1993. Toward a theory of organizational
creativity. Academy of Management Review 18:293321.
Woodman, R. W., and L. F. Schoenfeldt. 1990. An interactionist model of creative behavior.
Journal of Creative Behavior 24, 1020.
Ziv, A. 1988. Using humor to develop creative thinking. Journal of Children in Contemporary
Society 20:99116.

Previewpdf

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Previewpdf

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Creativity in Context

with updates Tbjj

Published 2018 by Routledge

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

Copyright © 1996 Taylor & Francis

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Preface to the Updated Edition xi

2 The Meaning and Measurement of Creativity 19

3 A Consensual Technique for Creativity Assessment 41

Other Uses of the Consensual Assessment Technique, 78

6 Effects of Reward and Task Constraint 153

7 Social Facilitation, Modeling, and Motivational Orientation 179

8 Other Social and Environmental Influences 203

Enhancing the Components of Creativity, 257

10 Toward a Comprehensive Psychology of Creativity 263

References to the 1983 Edition 275

When Westview Press expressed an interest in republishing The Social Psychology

Brandeis University, and the Veteran's Administration Hospital at Brockton,

McArthur, Ricardo Morant, Harvey Pines, David Schneider, Mark Snyder,

In this surprisingly lyrical passage from his autobiography, Einstein sounds a

A Gap in Creativity Research

Some Social Psychological Stories

factors seem to play a crucial role in creative performance. There is considerable

Albert Einstein: From External to Internal Control

Anne Sexton: Coping with External Constraint

Throughout her career as a writer, Sexton struggled (usually with success)

Sexton seemed to be generally aware, however, of the detrimental effects that

Sylvia Plath: A Losing Battle with External Constraint

James Watson: A Race for Success

It is impossible to estimate the impact that this fierce competition had on

Thomas Wolfe: The Pressure of Success

A Recurrent Theme: Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Motivation

You might also like